Reimagined and Renewed

Mayor’s Advisory Task Force Draft Plan

Arredondo, Zepeda & Brunz, LLC | New Gen Strategies & Solutions, LLC | Risa Weinberger, & Associates | EnFocus Strategies | Tetra Tech

PART I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary………………………….…………………………………………………………i

PART II – BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

1.0 Introduction & Purpose ...... 1 History of Solid Waste Planning in Houston ...... 3 Other Plans Affecting Solid Waste ...... 4 Planning Process ...... 4 Community Input ...... 5

2.0 Current Solid Waste Management Program ...... 7 Key Points ...... 7 Summary of Services ...... 8 Program Funding ...... 10 Collection Program ...... 12 City Facilities ...... 17 Public Education & Information Program ...... 21 Waste Minimization & Reuse Programs ...... 22 Recycling & Organics ...... 23 Overall Diversion Rate ...... 24 Energy & Resource Recovery ...... 24 Disposal ...... 25 Illegal Dumping ...... 26

3.0 Houston Background ...... 28 Background Key Points ...... 28 Geography & Land Use ...... 28 Climate & Topography...... 29 Transportation System ...... 31 Demographics ...... 34

4.0 Waste Generation & Diversion Assessment ...... 37 Disposal Forecast ...... 37 Diversion Forecast ...... 40 Forecast Summary ...... 46

5.0 Facilities Assessment ...... 47 A Complex Regional System ...... 48 MSW Landfills ...... 49 Construction & Demolition Landfills ...... 53 Material Recovery Facilities ...... 55 Organics Processing Facilities ...... 56 Transfer Stations ...... 56 Other Waste Management Facilities ...... 58

6.0 Strategic Analysis ...... 59 Process ...... 59 Financial Sustainability ...... 59 Landfill Disposal ...... 68 Collection Services ...... 72 Transfer Stations ...... 75 Source Reduction, Reuse, Recycling ...... 77 Organics ...... 85 Energy and Resource Recovery ...... 88 Illegal Dumping ...... 90

PART III - VISION, GOALS AND ACTION PLAN

7.0 Vision, Goals & Objectives ...... 92 Plan Vision ...... 92 Plan Goals ...... 92 Plan Objectives ...... 92

8.0 Plan Recommendations & Impacts ...... 98 Plan Priorities ...... 98 Climate and Resiliency Plans ...... 99 Organizational Plan ...... 100 Financial Plan ...... 104 Impact on the Waste Stream ...... 107 Accountability Plan ...... 114 Action Plan ...... 115

PART IV - GLOSSARY, TABLES AND MAPS

Appendix A – Acronyms & Glossary ...... 132 Acronyms ...... 133 Glossary ...... 134

Appendix B – Facilty Maps & Tables ...... 137

Appendix C – MATF Tables ...... 155

Appendix D - Organizational Responsibilities ...... 162

PART I Executive Summary “We are here to protect the health of all Houstonians. We are also here to enhance the community’s environment and respond to the needs of the community in times of emergency. The staff of the Houston Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD) understand the critical nature of the service we provide and the need to assure that over the long- term, the City of Houston has a reliable and comprehensive program to address our municipal solid waste needs.” - Director Harry Hayes speaking on the SWMD’s critical role in protecting the health and environment of the Houston community. Without much thought, Houston residents place their carts filled with either municipal solid waste (MSW) or recyclables at the curbside. Residents may also be placing their junk waste or tree waste at the curb. At the end of the day, the carts are empty. At the end of the week, the tree waste or junk waste is gone. Few understand the nature of collecting and managing their trash or recyclables as it is, indeed, a complex process. A process that requires constant evaluation and planning in order to provide the level of service Houstonians expect.

In late 2018, the City selected a The MATF was responsible for developing plan goals and objectives; prioritizing consulting team to assist the City programs and policies; reviewing and approving the Integrated Resource Recovery prepare a long-term solid waste Management Plan. management plan. The “Project Team” includes the firms of Arredondo, Zepeda & Brunz LLC, New Gen Strategies and Solutions, Tetra Tech, Risa Weinberger and Associates and EnFocus Strategies. In 2019, Mayor Turner appointed a Mayor’s Advisory Task Force (MATF) to help prepare a long-term solid waste management plan. The Integrated Resource Recovery Management Plan (“Plan”) is intended to identify the City’s needs, resources, and approaches to addressing waste management through the year 2040. One of the MATF’s primary responsibilities was to develop goals and objectives for the Plan. Specific goals of the Plan, as approved by the MATF, are presented below, and detailed in Part III, Section 7 of the Plan.

▪ Achieve financial sustainability for solid waste services;

▪ Increase source reduction, material reuse, recycling and organics diversion while also decreasing environmental risks of waste disposal in landfills;

▪ Continue to provide quality solid waste services to the residents and businesses of Houston;

▪ Ensure long-term disposal capacity and sustainable solid waste infrastructure;

▪ Provide solid waste management services in a safe, equitable, responsive, and environmentally responsible manner.

Background Houston is the 4th largest city in the country. With a population of 2.3 million people, the City has grown dramatically over the past ten years. It has a vibrant City of Houston economy that generates over 1.8 million jobs. As a growing city, it faces serious th largest city in the U.S. challenges in meeting basic infrastructure needs. Major construction projects 4 can be seen across the City to resolve issues related to transportation, water service and other needs. The City’s close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico places 2.3 million people it in the path of strong storms and hurricanes – becoming more prevalent in recent years. Each of these factors – a growing population, a strong economy, 671 square miles traffic congestion and storm events - impact the City’s solid waste management needs as detailed in Section 3. Waste Management Needs & Facilities To understand current and future solid waste Forecast Waste Generation management needs, the Project Team prepared a Waste Generation Report and a Facilities Report. 6.0 These reports are summarized in Part II, Sections 4 and 5 of the Plan. In one year, City residents and 5.0 businesses generate 4.2 million tons of MSW that 4.0 has to be collected, transported, and disposed. By

2040, with no changes in waste management 3.0 practices, generation is estimated to increase to

5.3 million tons per year. 2.0 Million Million TonsYear / It might surprise Houstonians to know how much 1.0 material is being recycled in the City. A review of a variety of sources and interviews 0.0 2020 2030 2040 with local businesses indicates that approximately 2 million tons of materials, organics and construction and demolition (C&D) material are recycled each year – the majority of which is C&D material. Once collected, recyclable materials are either taken directly to market or a materials recovery facility (MRF). In the case of the recyclables set out at the curb, these materials are taken to the FCC MRF located in northeast Houston. Organic materials are processed into either mulch or compost at privately owned facilities. In order to efficiently transport waste and materials to the appropriate facilities, the City FCC Material Recovery Facility opened in 2019 to owns three transfer stations that are used to transfer process Houston residential recyclables MSW from collection vehicles to more efficient transfer trailers.

MSW is disposed at one of the region’s 12 MSW landfills or 15 C&D landfills. Landfill capacity in the Regional Landfill Projected Capacity region is a major issue in terms of meeting future 2017-2040 (cubic yards) disposal needs. Currently, there is approximately 30 350,000,000 to 40 years of remaining capacity in the region. By 300,000,000 the year 2040, unless there are major landfill 250,000,000 expansions, only 5 of the 12 MSW sites will still be in operation. Landfills in the region are 200,000,000 privately owned and operated. By 2040, all C&D 150,000,000 landfill capacity is projected to be consumed. 100,000,000 This assumes that as landfills reach capacity, the 50,000,000 waste normally accepted at the closed facility must go to an alternate site. As more landfills reach - 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 capacity, greater quantities must go to fewer landfills, thereby accelerating the time they would reach Municipal Solid Waste C&D capacity. For example, if a landfill currently has 60 Combined Waste Streams years of capacity, the additional waste could reduce its capacity by 30 years. Without major expansions or new sites, landfill capacity will shrink from over 350 million cubic yards (267 million tons) to less than 100 million cubic yards (75 million tons) by 2040. Each year, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H- GAC) region disposes approximately 10 million tons, which is anticipated to increase with increases in population.

City Services

The City has a state mandated obligation to provide for the proper collection and management of MSW. SWMD provides… By law, MSW has to be collected at least once per ▪ Public Education week. The City provides direct collection service to ▪ Weekly MSW collection over 396,730 households; approximately 55,000 ▪ Every two week recyclables collection households receive collection service through ▪ Weekly collection of yard waste sponsorship programs. The City has ordinances in ▪ Storm debris collection place that require owners of multi-family buildings ▪ Collection of junk waste and tree waste and businesses to arrange for collection of MSW at ▪ Operation of depositories & recycling centers least once per week. ▪ Illegal dump site clean-up Managing MSW also means providing services that ▪ Assuring disposal capacity reduce the overall environmental impact of its ▪ Tire recovery program generation. The City’s program focuses on ways to encourage residents and businesses to reduce MSW, increase recycling and manage yard waste and tree waste properly. Some of the key services provided by the City are presented on the right. A more detailed description of these services is presented in Part II, Section 2.

iii

Options & Recommendations

The Project Team presented to the MATF an analysis of the City’s current waste and resource management program and identified a range of options designed to achieve their goals and objectives. Part II, Section 6 of the Plan identifies a range of options. Part III, Section 7 provides specific goals and objectives and Part III, Section 8 presents Plan-specific recommendations. The key recommendations of the Plan related to these goals are presented below.

1. Achieve Financial Sustainability for Solid Waste Services The program is also significantly under funded by an estimated $20- $40 million. The recommended solution is for the City to establish an Enterprise Fund, similar to the City’s water and wastewater utility. The Enterprise Fund would provide a more secure funding mechanism for the City. The Enterprise Fund should be funded through a monthly service fee and an environmental fee. The monthly service fee would apply to all single-family residents receiving City services. It is estimated that the monthly service fee would be in the range of $20 to $25 per household per month. The actual fee would be determined by evaluating capital needs Unlike almost every other large city in the including fleet, labor costs, disposal costs and the City’s needs country, the City of Houston’s waste and to improve overall service and implement several of the resource management program is funded recommendations made in this Plan to extend landfill capacity through the General Fund. through source reduction, recycling and organics management. An environmental fee would apply to all single and multi-family households, as well as businesses and institutions in the City. The environmental fees would vary depending on whether the payer is a single-family household, multi-family household, or business. For single family residents receiving City services, the fee is estimated to be approximately $5.61 per month. The total environmental fee from all sectors is proposed to generate $44 million annually to pay for: • illegal dumping clean-up, • increased enforcement of City-codes, • homeless camp clean-ups, • more depositories, • education, • equipment readiness, • container lease and management, and • future disposal capacity.

Residents receiving City services would pay monthly fees of $21 The combined funds would increase the to $26 per month for both the monthly service fee and the SWMD budget to a level that would environmental fee. A review of other major Texas cities shows provide the SWMD the resources to that their combined fees range between $16 and $51.80 per improve the quality of services provided household per month; the average for 16 major metro areas in the and meet the future challenges. These country is $36 per household per month. challenges include the following. The MATF expressed concern for the financial burden that the • Increased population fees would place on low-income individuals. The City currently • Replacement of collection vehicles has in place the W.A.T.E.R. Fund Program. This Program is on a regular basis funded entirely through donations but is administered by the City. • Future storm events The program’s purpose is to provide financial assistance to low- • Illegal dumping & homeless camp income individuals who need assistance paying their water bills. clean-up Such a program could potentially be expanded to include solid waste fees. • Need to increase resource recovery • Diminishing landfill capacity 2. Increase source reduction, material reuse, recycling and organics diversion while also decreasing environmental risks of waste disposal in landfills To preserve landfill space and to reduce the environmental impacts of MSW disposal, the MATF recommends a number of new initiatives for the City to implement. These programs are designed to reduce MSW generation, encourage more recycling and assist in the development of markets for recyclable materials and recovered organics. It is critical that multi-family residences and commercial businesses be part of this solution as they represent 82% of the waste generated in the City. The Plan envisions a long-term partnership between the public and private sectors to work together to address this issue.

3. Continue to provide quality solid waste services to the residents and businesses of Houston As discussed above, the City provides a wide range of services Right-Size & that are designed to provide reliable and efficient service to Invest for Growth Houston residents. The SWMD’s program needs to be RIGHT-SIZED. An analysis of the City’s program in comparison to other cities shows that Houston employees serve nearly twice as many households per employee than the cities of Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. The City’s program needs to continue to replace older trucks, hire more staff and add routes to meet the needs of residents as the City grows.

4. Ensure long-term disposal capacity and sustainable solid waste infrastructure Currently, there is no silver bullet for making waste go away. Technologies continue to evolve to help move toward a future of zero waste, but it is unlikely that during the planning period, the City’s reliance on landfills will come to an end. Securing new disposal capacity is increasingly more difficult to achieve. Under the best of circumstances, securing a new landfill will take between 10 and 15 years to site, permit and construct. The City should continue to monitor landfill capacity in the region. The City should begin the process of identifying potential sites for future disposal facilities and move to permit and construct its own landfill. Once established, the City can operate with City staff or contract operations as it does with its transfer stations.

5. Provide solid waste management services in a safe, equitable, responsive, and environmentally responsible manner The City is committed to providing service in a safe, equitable, and responsive manner. The Plan addresses issues related to improved safety and the need to be equitable as demonstrated by recommending new depositories throughout the City with recognition that any new facilities take environmental justice into consideration. The MATF also recommended additional actions be taken to address the City’s illegal dumping problem. More resources need to be made available including equipment, crews, and depositories to reduce illegal dumping and improve the way illegal dumping ordinances are enforced.

Covid-19 and Solid Waste Management The preparation of this Plan was initiated long before Covid-19 was an issue. Our focus was to develop strategies that are designed to provide quality services to Houston’s residents in a cost-effective manner while addressing future solid waste management needs. The implications of Covid-19 for the SWMD are dramatic, especially for a department where the safety of SWMD staff has always been a high priority. SWMD staff have not been immune from the virus or its consequences. Covid-19 has significantly affected the entire solid waste industry. Maintaining a safe working environment for essential service providers has required a significant shift in operations. For example, the SWMD’s facilities such as the Environmental Service Department must operate in a manner that promotes social distancing and worker safety. Safety meetings take on a whole new importance as SWMD management addresses staff concerns regarding Covid-19 and how best to avoid becoming infected. Without a vaccine for the virus available, the City and other solid waste service providers will have to develop innovative ways to be able to continue to provide vital solid waste services while protecting the health of their staff.

PART II – BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS 1.0 Introduction & Purpose “A long-range plan is good governance for today and tomorrow. It provides the City’s leadership, citizens, environmental groups and businesses with a best practices roadmap to Houston’s future and its array of solid waste services, programs and regulations. This Plan addresses our most pressing needs, including the need for financial stability for the valuable services provided to residents by the City, a more aggressive program to reduce waste going to landfills and assuring long-term disposal options for the City’s residents and businesses. I want to personally thank the members of the Mayor’s Advisory Task Force for their assistance in preparing this important plan.” Harry Hayes Solid Waste Management Director

Houston residents rely on the City to provide quality solid waste management services to protect the health and environment of the community. To fulfill this obligation, the City provides a range of services to residents including the collection and proper management of recyclables, organics, and residential waste. The City also requires the business community to act responsibly in the management of its waste. Because of the complex nature of municipal solid waste (MSW) management, it is necessary to periodically evaluate the City’s waste management system and develop action plans to improve services, enhance the City’s environment and assure long-term disposal capacity. This Plan includes a move towards sustainable materials management as recommended by the US EPA. The Integrated Resource Recovery Management Plan (“Plan”) presents a comprehensive program that is intended to accomplish the following. ▪ Reduce the amounts of waste generated. ▪ Assure long-term disposal capacity for municipal ▪ Encourage greater material recycling. solid waste. ▪ Reduce food waste and increase organics ▪ Encourage the development of new technologies diversion. for reducing waste and recovering materials. ▪ Improve the quality of service to residents. ▪ Establish a sustainable fiscal program to provide SWMD services. ▪ Combat illegal dumping. The planning period is 2020 through 2040. The Plan provides the City with recommended strategies that address City solid waste management needs through the planning period. RESPONSIBILITIES: On a daily basis, Houston residents and businesses generate over 11,500 tons of MSW (a.k.a. trash), or 4.2 million tons per year. The management of MSW requires an integrated system that includes the following tasks: ▪ Collection of household garbage, recyclables, yard waste, tree waste, junk waste, tires, and household hazardous wastes; ▪ Enforcement of City policies that require apartment owners, businesses, and institutions to properly collect, process and dispose their waste;

▪ Utilization of transfer stations to reduce costs and the number of trucks traveling from collection points to final disposal and processing sites; ▪ Recovery of recycled materials at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) or one of several Houston businesses providing recycling services; Working Towards Zero Waste ▪ Operation and maintenance of recycling centers, depositories, and environmental services centers to Some local solid waste management provide additional collection and recycling plans seek to eliminate all waste opportunities; generated within its community. This Plan is ▪ Production of useful mulch and compost at one of intended to identify pathways towards zero waste. several local facilities that process yard waste, brush, The plan presents realistic strategies that will and a small amount of food waste; require a blend of public policies and ▪ Management of wastes that are generated as a result programs that will encourage actions of major storm events such as Hurricane Harvey and throughout the Houston community. These Tropical Storm Imelda; ▪ Disposal of MSW in one of the region’s 27 permitted actions include a blend of education, operating landfills; incentives, and enforcement. ▪ Collection and proper disposal of waste illegally dumped at dump sites located throughout the City. CHALLENGES: It must be recognized that to meet future challenges, the City must maintain a high degree of flexibility and responsiveness to these challenges. Some of the challenges associated with future waste management can be readily predicted, such as the expectation that the Houston region will continue to grow in population and Houston will continue to experience major storm events. Other factors such as those listed below are less certain. ▪ Potential storm events that are significantly greater than normal - similar to the magnitude of Hurricane Harvey ▪ Long-term economic conditions, specifically the availability of markets, and revenue for recycled materials ▪ Changes in the way products are manufactured and packaged that may affect the amount of waste generated and the types of waste generated ▪ The competitive nature of the local workforce affecting the availability and cost of collection crews and other SWMD staff ▪ Advances in technologies for processing materials including MSW ▪ Federal, State, or local laws that could affect collection or disposal ▪ Decisions by local solid waste businesses that could either increase or decrease regional landfill capacity

FINANCES: Houston’s FY 2021 solid waste management program is In comparison to other large cities and currently budgeted at $88.9 million. The City also has a Recycling Revenue Fund to pay for materials processing, recycling collection across the US, Houston’s solid waste vehicles, intradepartmental transfers and other efforts, which has a budget of $4.9 million. The Plan evaluates the City’s financial resources budget is extremely underfunded. in comparison to its core services and the need to enhance the local environment which may require an expansion of core services. In May 2020, the City adopted a cart lease program. This program is anticipated to raise approximately $5.0 million per year. The Project Team prepared comprehensive documents that were presented to the MATF as part of the planning process. These documents are considered appendices to the Plan and include the following. ▪ Waste Generation Report ▪ Waste Management Activity Analysis – Part 2 ▪ Facilities Report 2

▪ Waste Management Activity Analysis – Part 1 Collection, Transfer Stations, Resource & Energy Source Reduction, Recycling, Organics, Illegal of Recovery, Landfill Disposal Dumping ▪ Strategic Analysis Report

History of Solid Waste Planning in Houston Since 1988, the City has prepared a range of solid waste management plans and program reviews. Below is a summary of the key prior planning initiatives.

1988: Solid Waste Department published a 20-year plan for Houston Solid Waste Services. 1990: Mayor Kathy Whitmire commissioned the Citizens Advisory Committee on Solid Waste Disposal Solutions. The City also contracted with a consulting team to guide the committee and write the plan. Some of the key recommendations of this plan include the following. ▪ The City should initiate an integrated system to meet the City’s long-term waste disposal needs. The integrated approach includes source reduction, recycling (including composting), waste incineration and landfilling. ▪ The City should implement an aggressive source reduction and recycling program. These are the preferred methods of waste management because these programs conserve natural resources and reduce the need to combust or landfill waste. ▪ The City should initiate actions to acquire and permit its own landfill for waste generated by the City’s residential sector. At that time, the City did not own a landfill; therefore, it relied on privately owned sites to meet its disposal obligations. ▪ The City should continue to examine incineration, either in the form of waste-to-energy or for volume reduction specifically. (The economic conditions at that time - low landfill costs and low energy prices, did not favor implementation at that time.) ▪ The City should establish a dedicated waste management enterprise fund for collection and disposal of solid waste.

2006: Mayor Bill White commissioned the Solid Waste Task Force to review Houston’s solid waste management programs and services. The Task Force was chaired by then Controller Annise Parker and Sanifill CEO Lorne Bain. Recommendations from this effort have been adopted or implemented, with the exception of a proposed enterprise fund. 2016: Mayor Sylvester Turner authorized procuring services for this Integrated Resource Management Plan (Zero- Waste Plan) to guide the City’s decisions for the next several years. A contract was approved in late 2018. This Plan is the outcome of that contract.

Other Plans Affecting Solid Waste Climate Action Plan In 2017, Mayor Turner made the commitment that Houston would adopt, honor, and uphold the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Houston Climate Action Plan is designed to identify measures that can be adopted by the City to achieve these goals. The Integrated Resource Recovery Management Plan considers the material management recommendations developed for the City as part of the Climate Action Plan. Disaster Debris Management Plan The City of Houston Emergency Management Plan provides strategic guidance for City departments in the event of an emergency. The plan, which consists of a Basic Plan and functional annexes, is evaluated every five years on a rotating schedule. Annex W of the Emergency Management Plan is the Debris Management Plan. The City also maintains contracts for the management of disaster events and for the supplemental collection services that may be required during and immediately following a disaster event. Houston Resiliency Plan Resilient Houston is based on five themes that emerged from the “discovery areas” identified in the Resilience Assessment and used by Resilient Houston working group members to organize their approach to increasing resilience in Houston. These themes include the following: ▪ A Healthy Place to Live ▪ An Equitable and Inclusive City ▪ A Transformative Economy ▪ A Leader in Climate Adaptation ▪ A City That Grows Up, Not Out Planning Process Project Team Selection In 2016, Mayor Turner recommended to the City Council that the City needed to evaluate the current solid waste management program and develop a long-term waste management plan. The Houston Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD) is the lead City agency responsible for managing the planning process. In late 2018, the City selected the consulting team of Arredondo, Zepeda & Brunz LLC, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, Risa Weinberger & Associates, Tetra Tech and EnFocus Strategies (the Project Team) to develop the Plan. Plan Development Development of a long-range plan required the following steps: 1. Examining the City’s current solid waste program; 2. Evaluating factors that could influence needs in the future; 3. Understanding the available, current resources for managing waste and recyclables; 4. Developing, with community input, goals and objectives for the future solid waste management program; 5. Identifying strategies that will move the City toward achieving stated goals and objectives; 4

6. Securing public input into the Plan’s preliminary approach; and 7. Finallizing the Plan and securing Mayor and City Council approval of the Plan. Community Input Mayor’s Advisory Task Force To provide sufficient public input into the process, the Mayor formed the Mayor’s Advisory Task Force (MATF). The MATF is comprised of individuals representing neighborhood groups, academia, recycling interests, environmental groups, regional organizations and the solid waste industry. Members of the MATF included the following individuals. MATF Task Force Members

Academic Composting Industry Non-Profit Organization Abate T. Wolde-Kirkos PhD Lora Hinchcliff Rachel Powers Apartment Industry Justin DuBose Recycling Industry Andy Teas Construction / Demolition Andrea Rodriquez Community Representatives Joe Rizzo Solid Waste Industry Becky Edmunson HARC Brandon Rogers Jessica Hulsey Andra Wilcox Shanna Lopez Allen Goodlow H-GAC Brett Sarver Debbie White Cheryl Mergo Rogene Calvert Vincent Sanders Amy Boyers

The MATF met at various times throughout the planning process. The input from the MATF has been extremely valuable to the development of this Plan. The MATF accomplished the following tasks: ▪ Developed goals and objectives; ▪ Assisted with the development of a public input survey; ▪ Provided input into community policies; ▪ Reviewed the findings of community input efforts including presentation at public meetings; and ▪ Reviewed and approved the draft and final Integrated Resource Recovery Management Plan.

Public Input The SWMD anticipated implementing a number of in-person public meetings to gain input from the citizens regarding the direction of the Plan. However, Covid-19 has had an impact on the ability to hold large-scale public events. Online public meetings, sponsored by SWMD, will be held virtually to receive public feedback about the DRAFT Plan. In addition, a variety of online survey and web applications will be used to gather and analyze public input. The SWMD will evaluate all input and update the Plan as necessary. The website created for the Plan provides information about the Plan including the project approach, documents and overall transparency to the public. A report on the public comments will also be presented as an appendix to the FINAL Plan.

2.0 Current Solid Waste Management Program Key Points 1. The City relies on the General Fund to pay for solid waste management services. The 2021 SWMD Budget is $88.97 million. In comparison to other large-scale Texas cities, this amount is significantly less than what other cities spend per household for solid waste management services. 2. The use of General Fund revenues is uncharacteristic of most large cities. Most large-scale cities in Texas and across the country recover the cost of service through a user fee or a special assessment, funding an enterprise fund. For the four cities that were evaluated for comparison as part of this Plan, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin and Fort Worth, the range of monthly fees, including environmental fees, were $22.75 (Fort Worth), $27.26 (Dallas), $29.00 (San Antonio) and $50.80 (Austin). 3. A comparison to other cities in Texas shows that Houston’s staffing level is approximately ½ of what other communities have to provide similar services. The City’s collection program is staffed at a rate of 908 households per employee compared to 400 to 500 households per employee in the four comparison cities identified above. This places extreme stresses on the current staff and is a major contributor to the high rate of turnover in the Department. There is a significant need to right-size the Department for current and future services provided. 4. The City’s collection program relies on equipment that is in need of replacement. Approximately 50% of the trucks (side load, recycling and rear load) are over seven years old. Older trucks generally break down more often, require higher costs to maintain, and generate more emissions than newer trucks. 5. The City provides solid waste and recycling collection services to 390,786 households each week. In 2019, the City collected a total of 802,585 tons of MSW, bulky waste, recyclables and organics. 6. The City provides collection services to Houston residents designed to reduce the amounts of waste requiring disposal. These services include every other week collection of recycable materials at the curb, operation of depositories and recycling centers, and the separate collecton of yard waste and tree waste. Because 2018 included Hurricane Harvey, recycling efforts were curtailed for a portion of the year. In CY 2019, a total of 99,550 tons of recyclables, yard waste and wood were collected for recovery, or 12% of the waste collected. 7. The City’s solid waste facilities include 6 depositories, 3 recycling centers, 2 environmental service centers, 4 service centers and 3 transfer stations. There are plans to design, permit and construct a 4th transfer station. 8. The City does not own a landfill and instead relies on contracts with private sector landfills. 9. The City provides for the collection of illegal dump sites. Both enforcement and resources available for cleaning up illegal dump sites are issues.

Summary of Services The SWMD is primarily focused on providing service to single family households. Below is a summary of key services the City provides. Table 2-1 presents a summary of the collection services that are provided by the City, frequency of collection, and types of materials selected. Table 2-2 presents a summary of the tonnages collected from these various programs. The City’s solid waste ordinance (Chapter 39 of the City Code) defines the services the City must provide as well as regulations related to solid waste management provided by both the public sector and the private sector. Table 2-1 Houston Single-Family Residential Solid Waste Collection Services Service Frequency Materials Container Residential Garbage Weekly Municipal Solid Waste 96-gallon carts Yard Waste Weekly Grass clippings / leaves, brush Compostable bags (not to exceed 50lbs) and small branches (less than 4’ in length) Residential Every two weeks Paper and cardboard, glass, 96-gallon carts Recyclables plastics #1-5 and 7, metals Bulky (“junk”) waste Every other month Junk Waste” is defined as items No more than 8 cubic yards may be placed at the such as furniture, appliances, curb at once and other bulky material. Tree waste Every other month “Tree Waste” is defined as No more than 8 cubic yards may be placed at the “clean” wood waste such as tree curb at once limbs, branches, and stumps. Lumber, furniture, and treated wood are not accepted. Dead animal collection On-call service For a fee, the City will collect NA large dead animals Neighborhood Up to 4 times per month Junk waste, tree waste Vehicles larger than two tons and trailers longer Depositories & Hours of operation are Wed- recyclables, used motor oil, and than 16 feet are not permitted to use facilities. Recycling Centers Sunday 9:00 am – 6:00 pm wood fencing (non-daylight savings time) Environmental Service South -Tuesdays and A variety of household There are specific limits on various materials that Centers Wednesdays hazardous wastes, batteries, the City will accept. 9 am to 3 pm paints and electronic wastes North - 2nd Thursday of each month 9 am – 3 pm Mobile Collection Periodic collection dates Batteries, oil, paint, antifreeze, 15-gallon limit on oil throughout the City appliances and scrap metal 15-gallon limit on paint 15-gallon limit on antifreeze Other services provided by the SWMD include the following:

▪ Collection of illegally dumped waste tires. These ▪ Table 2-2 tires are sent to tire processors; ▪ 2019 Houston Waste Collections ▪ Collection of useable construction material at the Waste Stream Tons City’s Reuse Warehouse; Municipal Solid Waste 433,851 ▪ Emergency response to disaster events such as Bulky Waste (junk waste) 269,183 Hurricane Harvey; Yard Waste 11,000 ▪ Collection of waste disposed illegally at illegal Tree Waste 37,360 dump sites throughout the City; and Traditional Recyclables 51,191 ▪ Participation in Keep Houston Beautiful events that are designed to collect litter and illegally Total 802,585 dumped waste from communities.

Multi-family and Non-Residential Waste Collection & Management Multi-family and Non-residential waste Figure 2-1 accounts for approximately 82% of the waste Sources of Waste (2019) - generated in Houston. This includes waste Source: Waste Generation Report from apartments, commercial establishments, Single Family and institutions such as schools, hospitals, and 18% industries. The City’s Solid Waste Ordinance (Chapter 39) states that “Property owners shall ensure that solid waste collection services are provided on a regularly scheduled basis to collect all solid Multi Family waste generated or accumulated on their 15% property. Such schedule will be established to ensure that solid waste is collected at least one Commercial time per week or more frequently if required...” 67% Waste generated by non-residential sources and multi-family residences are collected by the private sector and taken to one of the several facilities identified in this report for either recycling, processing, or disposal. Businesses in the City are responsible for arranging for the collection and proper disposal Figure 2-2 of MSW. Typically, businesses contract with a Historic Solid Waste Franchise Fees ($1,000) private hauler to collect their waste, and recyclables if applicable. It is a competitive $10,000 market. Rates for collection of materials from $8,000 multi-family and non-residential sources in Houston are determined by the size of collection $6,000 container and the frequency of collection. $4,000

Private haulers providing services to businesses in $2,000 the City must pay a franchise fee to the City. This $- franchise fee is to compensate the City for the cost 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 associated with the haulers impacts to City streets and other City infrastructure. The fee is set at 4% Actual Adjusted for Inflation of gross revenues from transporting commercial solid and industrial wastes that originate within the City limits. The estimated FY 2019 total solid waste franchise fees collected was $8 million. Assuming a 4% rate, the total gross revenues generated by the 142 active solid waste haulers is $200 million. In addition to the franchise fee, companies are required to secure annual dumpster permits that vary in proportion to the size of the containers. Figure 2-2 illustrates the franchise fees that have been generated over the past several years. The figure illustrates that since FY 2005, the fees have increased by 85% in actual value from $4.1 million to $8.0 million in FY 2020. When adjusted for inflation, these revenues increased 36% from $4.1 million to $6.0 million. Based on a review of employment and inflation data over this timeframe, the data suggest that per employee generation rates for businesses and institutions during this period have increased, not decreased. Compliance with the franchise fee should be monitored to assure the City recieves proper reimbursement.

Program Funding The SWMD is funded through the General Fund. This is unlike most other Enterprise Fund – A fund that is large cities across the country who rely on a Monthly Residential Service established for the sole purpose of Fee and in some cases an Environmental Fee to pay for the cost of solid providing a municipal service. The waste management services. These cities established an Enterprise Houston Water Department is an example Fund to pay for the cost of collection, processing, and disposal. The use of a service funded through an Enterprise of an Enterprise Fund would allow the SWMD to function similar to a Fund. private enterprise. Environmental Fees are established to pay for services that do not benefit only single family residential households, Monthly Residential Service Fee – A fee including clean-up of illegal dump sites, construction and operation of that is charged to all residents receiving regional depositories and recycling centers, and public information solid waste services such as weekly programs that address residential, commercial, multi-family and collection of garbage. institutional sectors. Monthly Environmental Fee – A fee that is The SWMD FY 2021 budget is $88.97 million. This budget supports the charged monthly to all residents and contracts for services, salaries and benefits associated with employees businesses. For certain communities, the from the General Fund who are involved in SWMD community outreach Environmental Fee is referred to as a efforts. Clean Community Fee or similar name that reflects the use of the funds. There is also a special revenue fund referred to as the “Recycling Environmental Fees are often designed to Revenue Fund” that was created to allocate dedicated funds to be used pay for those services that affect the for the expansion and implementation of the City’s Recycling Programs. entire City, such as clean-up of illegal The majority of these funds are used to pay for processing single stream dump sites and operation of depositories. recycled materials. Other programs include citywide tree waste recycling, additional neighborhood depository sites, and increased education and outreach. For FY 2021, the Recycling Revenue Fund amount is budgeted at $4.9 million. The portion of the budget allocated for education is funded through the education contribution fee paid by the recyclable materials processor, per the processing contract. The Recycling Revenue Fund pays the salaries of 4 FTE positions to manage recycling contracts, education and outreach programs. Table 2-3 presents the SWMD’s budget from 2005 to 2020. The table shows that the SWMD’s budget has increased from $61.1 million in 2005 to a combined $90 million in 2020 (including SWMD General Funds and Recycling Revenue Funds). Three factors have had an impact on the SWMD budget since 2005.

▪ Since 2005, the number of households has increased from approximately 288,000 to over 390,000. ▪ The cost of providing service over the 15 years is approximately 15% higher than 2005. The budget per household has actually decreased from 2005 due to inflation and fuel price increases. ▪ The level of services provided since 2005 has increased significantly with the addition of single stream recycling, the addition of depositories and increased demands on the SWMD for storm debris management.

Table 2-3 SWMD Budget Year 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

SWMD Budget ($ million) $61.1 $71.7 $73.7 $76.6 $83.7 $80.5 $87.7 $93.1

Recycling Revenue Fund ($ NA $2.2 $2.6 $3.3 $6.6 $5.0 $5.3 $4.2 million)

Total $61.1 $73.9 $76.1 $79.9 $90.5 $85.5 $92.8 $97.3

FTE NA 644 438 452 438 428 432 436

Texas Cities – Key Metrics Table 2-4 provides a comparison of some of the key operational metrics for larger municipal solid waste utilities within Texas, including Houston. It is difficult to compare one municipal solid waste utility to another due to the various services provided, contracting out of certain services, etc. However, there are several factors that are worth noting in a review of the statistics. ▪ First, the City of Houston provides service to the largest number of households with the least number of employees. The City of Austin has 464 employees versus Houston with 437. Houston provides services to nearly double the number of households as the City of Austin (Austin does provide street and bike lane sweeping in its solid waste program). This has created the need for significant overtime expenses and employee stress. ▪ Secondly, the City of Houston’s per household budget is approximately 51% of the other cities. Regardless of the certain service differences, and frequency of services, etc., this calculation signifies a significant underfunding regarding the City of Houston and its Solid Waste Management Department versus its peer cities.

Table 2-4 Texas Cities – Key Metrics ( Houston San Dallas Fort Worth Austin Antonio Households Served 396,730 356,000 240,000 225,049 200,550 FTEs 437 619 619 116 464 Households Served per FTE 908 575 388 NA 432 Annual Budget (Millions) $92.8 $145.0 $113.8 $67.7 $97.1 Budget $/Household $233 $407 $474 $301 $484 1. Does not include private haulers collecting waste 2. Houston’s budget includes General Fund and recycling reserve fund 3. Based on FY 2019 budget comparison

Collection Program The City is responsible for collecting approximately Figure 2-3 Single-Family Residential Waste, Recyclables & Organics 802,585 tons of recyclables, organics and MSW from Collection single-family residences per year. To provide these Neighborhood services, the City maintains a fleet of collection vehicles, Tree Waste Depositories 5% and Recycling three transfer stations, several depositories and recycling Yard Waste Centers 1% centers and environmental service centers. Figure 2-3 <1% illustrates the distribution of materials collected by the City. The figure illustrates that approximately 12% is collected and sent to either FCC for recyclable material processing Bulky Waste or to a Living Earth/LETCO facility for wood and yard waste 34% Residential processing into mulch or compost. Eighty-six percent of MSW MSW and bulky waste is sent to one of the City’s three 54% transfer stations (a small amount is sent to private transfer stations). Twenty-five percent of the bulky waste and MSW is sent directly to one of four landfills without using a Residential transfer station. The commercial sector, businesses and Recycling 6% institutions including apartments, have the responsibility to provide for their own collection, recycling, and disposal services. Collection Equipment To collect waste and recyclable materials, the City operates and maintains a fleet of collection Figure 2-4 vehicles and other equipment. The City uses Houston Collection Fleet (Oct. 2019) the same type of truck for the collection of solid 70 waste as recycling. Currently, the City is operating trucks that have 60 been purchased between 2005 and 2019. Interviews with solid waste managers in other 50 cities show that it is generally desired to maintain a solid waste fleet of vehicles which 40 have the vehicles replaced on average after 7 years of use.. A review of the City’s collection 30 fleet shows that over 50% of the City’s operating collection fleet is over 7 years old. 20 Figure 2-4 shows the distribution of truck purchases since 2005. Ideally, a fleet 10 replacement program results in a consistent replacement of trucks over the years. If this had 0 been done since 2005, the City would have 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 replaced 16 to 18 trucks per year. This level of replacement can only be achieved in the future Side Load Rear-Load once the fleet has eliminated a large number of the older trucks. For the next five years, it will be necessary to replace between 30 and 40 trucks per year to get to a point where no trucks are more than 7 years old; then the City can start replacing 18-20 trucks per years on a “normal” rotation.

The number of collection vehicles purchased by the City varies from year to year, often determined by the City’s fiscal condition. This has resulted in a series of years that experienced unfavorable budget conditions when few or no replacement trucks were purchased. In favorable economic times, the City has tried to catch up and purchase a large number of trucks in one year. For example, in 2007, a total of 68 trucks were purchased. This was also the year the City took back solid waste collection following managed competition. However, in 2013, 0 trucks were purchased for the Solid Waste Management Department. A preferred method is to have a consistent year-to-year program where older trucks are replaced with newer trucks annually. As of 2018, a total of 24 new trucks have been delivered. Another 31 trucks were purchased in 2019. A consistent fleet placement program yields the following advantages: ▪ Lower annual capital outlays necessary for collection vehicles; ▪ Reduced maintenance costs associated with maintaining older trucks. A review of fleet operating costs shows that trucks older than 7 years cost approximately $1 per mile (approximately 30%) more to maintain than trucks less than 7 years old. Total solid waste and recyclables collection miles driven by older trucks was 1.0 million miles of the total 2.6 million miles (does not include brush and bulky collections); ▪ Greater opportunities to take advantage of technological advances; ▪ Lower emissions from newer vehicles; and ▪ Availability of newer technologies. Table 2-5 presents a comparison of San Antonio’s fleet composition and age to Houston’s fleet. Table 2-5 Service & Fleet Comparison to San Antonio (FY 2019) Service Houston San Antonio Residential Customers 390,786 356,000 Age of Residential Collection Fleet Oldest operating trucks are 17 years old Oldest operating trucks are 8 years old Residential Services Residential Waste Weekly Weekly Residential Recyclables Bi-weekly Bi-weekly Residential Yard Waste Weekly Weekly Residential Food Waste Not provided Weekly Brush/Tree Waste Bi-monthly Semi-annually Bulky Waste Bi-monthly Semi-annually Number of Side Loaders 208 (42% are older than 7 years old) 185 Number of Rear Loaders 50 (90% are older than 7 years old) 49 Number of Grapple Trucks 42** (70% are over 7 years old) 44 Collection Rate (households / route) 1100 1250 Residential Collection Cost per Household $18.16 / month – based on City total solid Variable Household Fee averaging waste budget / number of households $27/month, not including environmental fee.

Staffing The City currently has an overall staff of 437 in the SWMD. Most of these staff provide collection services. Table 2-4 presented a comparison to other city solid waste staffing. On a per-household basis, Houston employees serve 937 households per Full Time Equivalent (FTE), while the average for San Antonio, Dallas and Austin is 456 households per FTE position. Fort Worth relies on private sector haulers, so its FTE positions do not provide a meaningful comparison. It should be noted that each city differs in the types of services provided; however, there is a clear difference in the level of staffing between these four cities. In 2019, the City budgeted for the equivalent of 38 FTE positions in overtime costs. The following are issues affecting full staffing:

▪ Non-Competitive salaries; ▪ Perceived working conditions in solid waste business; and Figure 2-5 ▪ Low unemployment (during development of the plan). Container Placement Increased Density and Its Impact on Collection Services There is an increasing trend of converting neighborhoods that once were primarily single family households to higher density housing. This trend has created unique problems for Houston’s solid waste collection crews. The City’s guidelines require proper placement of collection containers to allow for efficient collection. However, due to the density of housing in certain neighborhoods, these requirements are not adhered to, causing problems for automated collection crews. Figure 2-5 illustrates how increased density has presented issues. In the future, the City will have to develop specific strategies for providing efficient collection services in these areas. Sponsorships Section 39-64 of the City’s code of ordinances allows Homeowners Associations (HOA) and one civic association (CA) to arrange for their own solid waste management services and be reimbursed at a fixed rate by the City. “Sponsorship agreement means a reimbursement agreement between the City and an HOA or CA or other qualified entity for the purpose of partially offsetting the cost incurred by the association or qualifying entity in assuming the responsibility for all basic garbage collection service to residential units eligible for such service pursuant to Chapter 39 in certain defined areas of the city.” A total of 50,511 households are currently served through sponsorships in 164 HOAs or CAs. HOA’s or CA’s with sponsorship programs act as independent entities and are responsible for the supervision and day-to-day administration of the collection If the City adopts a monthly solid service contracts. Private collection companies contract with the homeowners’ waste management fee, new associations to provide service, and the City reimburses the associations for the policies will have to be adopted cost of solid waste services provided, not to exceed an amount established by City regarding the City’s relationship Council. The communities served through homeowners’ associations are with homeowners who live in responsible for costs above the amount allocated by Council. Currently, the sponsorship areas. maximum amount reimbursable is $6.00 per month per service unit authorized in the sponsorship agreement. Curbside Recycling Program The City provides residential curbside collection to 390,786 households within its service area, including weekly garbage collection, weekly yard waste collection, every other week recycling collection, and once per month tree waste/junk waste collection (in alternating months). These residential customers are provided with automated collection of garbage and single-stream (i.e. paper and containers comingled) collection of recyclables. Each residential customer is provided with a black 96-gallon roll cart for garbage and a green 96-gallon roll cart for recyclables collection. While the City has provided residential curbside recycling since the early 1990s, the transition to automated, single-stream recycling began in 2009. 14

Recyclable materials included in the City’s program (“program materials”) include the following:

▪ Paper: Newspaper, magazines, catalogs, junk mail, office paper; ▪ Plastic: Containers No. 1 through 5, and 7; examples include water and soda bottles, milk jugs, yogurt cups, detergent bottles; ▪ Aluminum cans and foil; ▪ Steel and tin cans; ▪ Glass; ▪ Cardboard (flattened); and ▪ Cartons: gable top and shelf stable cartons, juice cartons, soup cartons, soymilk/alternative milk cartons. As shown in Table 2-6, the curbside recycling rate has declined in recent years. It should be noted that glass was removed from the single-stream curbside recycling program in March of 2016 due to cost concerns, and glass drop-off locations were offered instead through a partnership with Strategic Materials Inc. Along with a new processing contract with FCC, glass was reinstated into the curbside program in April of 2019. In Fiscal Year 2018, the curbside collection programs for both recycling and yard waste were briefly suspended due to Hurricane Harvey, which may account for some of the decline in tons collected through curbside programs and, therefore, recycling and diversion rates in FY 2018. Quantities projected for FY 2019 are anticipated to increase back to prior year levels.

The City collects recyclable materials once every two weeks as Recycling & the Circular Economy discussed in the recycling section of this report. Key issues related to recyclables collection include the following: “Looking beyond the current take-make-waste ▪ High levels of contamination in the material; extractive industrial model, a circular economy ▪ As participation rates in the recycling program increase, aims to redefine growth, focusing on positive more trucks and staff must be directed to the recycling society-wide benefits. It entails gradually program. This could result in reductions in available decoupling economic activity from the MSW collection vehicles and staff. consumption of finite resources and designing ▪ Distances that recyclables now have to be hauled as the City relies completely on the FCC facility which is located waste out of the system. Underpinned by a in northeastern Houston; and transition to renewable energy sources, the ▪ In order to supplement City collection vehicles and crews, circular model builds economic, natural, and the City contracted for a private firm to provide recycling social capital. It is based on three principles: collection services in the northwest quadrant of the City. This is anticipated to be a short-term contract, with the ▪ Design out waste and pollution City providing services as soon as fleet and staffing needs ▪ Keep products and materials in use are addressed. ▪ Regenerate natural systems”

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 2 SF Curbside Recycling (Tons) 62,287 51,4971 36,595 SF Yard & Wood Waste (Tons) 54,479 54,569 30,612 SF Bulky Waste (Tons) 287,064 174,742 195,829 SF Curbside Garbage (Tons) 385,660 431,717 445,397 Total Tons3 789,490 712,525 708,433 Curbside Recycling Rate 7.89% 7.23% 5.17% Curbside Yard & Wood Waste Diversion Rate 6.90% 7.66% 4.32% Total Curbside Diversion Rate 14.79% 14.89% 9.49% 1. Glass was removed from the curbside recycling program in March of 2016. 2. The curbside collection program for recycling and yard waste was briefly suspended in FY 2018 after Hurricane Harvey. 3. This only includes tonnage collected by the City of Houston’s Solid Waste Management Department.

All recyclables collected by the City are processed and marketed by FCC with whom the City recently signed a 20-year contract. The City owns the $23 million plant under the contract, although FCC manages operations and maintenance. Curbside recyclables are delivered to the FCC MRF, which has an annual capacity of 145,000 tons. Tree Waste and Bulky Waste Collection Service Houston provides residents receiving City collection service with collection of both tree waste and junk waste. Collection of tree waste occurs in January, March, May, July, September, and November. Bulky waste is collected February, April, June, August, October, and December. The City maintains one fleet of trucks for collection and transport of both tree waste and bulky waste. Some of the same issues related to age of fleet are true for these trucks as well. The SWMD has tree grapple trucks that were purchased in 2001. The median age of the 42 tree grapple trucks is ten years. Table 2-7 shows the tons of tree waste and bulky waste collected in recent years.

Table 2-7 Tree Waste and Bulky Waste Collection Fiscal Year Tree Waste Collected Bulky Waste Collected FY 16 38,611 287,064 FY 17 39,157 174,742

FY 18 22,215 * 195,829 * Tonnages affected by Hurricane Harvey Collection of Waste During Storm Events Hurricane Harvey had a significant impact on the City’s solid waste management program. Since 2005, there have been an increasing number of storm events in the Gulf Coast area. Since 2000, there have been 9 major flooding events in Harris County. In addition to expected major storm events, weather forecasters are projecting that Texas temperatures are going to climb in future years due to climate change. “The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment recently warned that, by the late 21st century, temperatures in Texas could climb by more than 8 degrees, with an additional 30 to 60 days of 100- degree-plus temperatures and extreme heat that could result in hundreds of more heat-related deaths and greater risks to outdoor agricultural workers.” The significance of this to Houston’s solid waste program is that as temperatures climb, safety of workers becomes increasing more challenging, while the likelihood increases that additional workers will be required to collect waste. In 2017, the City of Houston experienced one of its greatest natural disasters in history. Hurricane Harvey brought unprecedented amounts of rain – 50 inches total. Some 208,000 homes were impacted, causing nearly $16 billion in

residential damage within the city limits alone. It is estimated that City of Houston crews worked a total of 379,000 hours of (equivalent to 188 full time workers) to clear storm-related debris. Hurricane Harvey Key Facts – Debris Removal 1. 575,000 tons of debris removed from Harvey- impacted neighborhoods 2. 67,600 truckloads of debris collected citywide 3. 21,000 tons of debris removed from Lake Houston 4. 379,000 hours worked by City employees on Harvey debris removal 5. 3 Mutual aid jurisdictions came to assist – City of San Antonio, City of Austin and TxDOT 6. Debris removal took 15 months 7. Estimated $259 million for debris removal activities in Houston debris sites and landfills Photo Source: https://qz.com/1239654/hurricane-harvey-woke-houston-up-now-things-have-to- change/ used for disposal https://www.houstontx.gov/postharvey/public/documents/11.28.2018_progress_report_updated.pdf

Multi-family service The number of Houstonians living in multi-family households is anticipated to increase from 1.0 million in 2019 to 1.6 million in 2040. This means that by 2040, over half the population will live in multi-family households. Multi-family complexes are treated as a business, where the owner of the business is responsible for securing any solid waste or recycling collection services for residents. Waste projections from this sector are addressed in Part II, Section 3.0 of this Plan. Only a small percentage of multi-family complexes have recycling services available to their residents. The City does maintain drop-off recycling centers to provide recycling services to residents of multi-family units, but residents must deliver their recyclables to the recycling centers. Therefore, locating future recycling centers or depositories should take into consideration the concentration of apartment complexes now and in the future. The need for additional drop-off centers could decrease if the City were to adopt a regulation that requires apartment owners to provide on-site recycling services to their tenants. Similar ordinances are either planned or adopted in San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas. City Facilities Transfer Stations Table 2-8 presents a summary of the waste accepted by the City’s three transfer stations. The table shows the amounts of waste the City of Houston delivers to each transfer station (includes both MSW and bulky waste), the amount of waste delivered by Republic Services which is the operator of the transfer stations, and the amounts of waste delivered to the site by other “third party” haulers. A total of 57% of the waste delivered to the transfer stations is from City haulers. Each of the City’s transfer stations has a capacity of 2000 tons per day. In 2017, the average throughput was approximately 700 to 750 tons per day, assuming 310 days of operation per year. Under the current contract for transfer station operations, the City is charged by Republic Services a fee of $26.50 per ton, which includes acceptance of the waste and the haul and disposal of waste. Under the Republic Services agreement, if the City wants to direct haul waste to Republic Services’ McCarty Road Landfill, the fee is also $26.50 per ton. Republic Services is authorized to accept waste from its own fleet as well as waste from outside its operations. In consideration of the fact that the City owns the facility, Republic Services is required to pay a “host fee” of $2.00 per ton for all Republic 17

waste and $3.00 per ton for all third party waste entering the facility. In 2017, Republic accepted a total of 232,653 tons of waste from its fleet and 67,663 tons from other sources. Total host fees generated in 2017 were approximately $670,000.

Table 2-8 2017 City Transfer Stations – Throughput by Hauler Type (Tons) City of Republic All Other Total Houston Services Privates Tonnage

Houston Northwest TS 86,988 117,418 18,212 222,619

Houston Southeast TS 194,057 34,927 11,053 240,039

Houston Southwest TS 113,734 80,306 38,397 232,438

Total 394,779 232,653 67,663 695,096

% of Total 57% 33% 10% 100% Aging Facilities All three of the City’s transfer stations were registered with TCEQ in 1999. They have been in steady operation for over 18 years. These facilities also take on a considerable amount of structural stress as they accept a large number of heavy trucks per day and material is continuously pushed with large front-end loaders. In order to maintain the integrity of these facilities and allow for continued operation, the City will likely have to make periodic investments to upgrade the

facilities, especially floors and roadways in and out. The City had a study of the facilities conducted in 2012. The study evaluated the condition of the three transfer stations and made several recommendations on improving the sites. Some of these recommendations included the following: ▪ Roof repairs ▪ Repair/replace push walls to provide column protection ▪ Overhead door replacement ▪ Repair concrete ramps and guardrails ▪ Repair concrete pavement ▪ Replace lighting fixtures ▪ Repair sprinklers, support beams ▪ Add armor plate to loadout chutes/hopper ▪ Repair buildings ▪ Increase building ceiling height in original building ▪ Relocate electrical panel and conduit ▪ Expand building to add tipping floor and chute for recyclables The estimated budget for these improvements is shown in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9 2012 Capital Improvement Recommendations for City Transfer Stations

Transfer Summary of Improvement

Station Capital Costs

Houston Northwest TS $4,143,000

Houston Southeast TS $3,319,000

Houston Southwest TS $561,000

Total $8,023,000 Recyclable Material Long-Haul Prior to the FCC contract for processing recyclable material, the City was using three different material recovery facilities. One of those facilities was the Waste Management Brittmore facility which is located in close proximity to the South Environmental Service Center. The City now must haul its recyclable materials from the southwest region of the City to the northeast region where FCC is located. Due to the configuration of the Southwest Transfer Station it is not practical to transfer recyclable materials from collection vehicles to long-haul vehicles there. This means that recyclable collection vehicles in the southwest quadrant have to haul their materials from the point of collection to the FCC facility, thereby requiring more collection vehicles for this part of town. The City owns the building for the Brittmore facility but has two years remaining on a lease of the building to Waste Management. Possible remedies are listed below. 1. Add more collection vehicles to the Southwestern region for collecting recyclables as it takes more time to haul materials from that location to FCC. 2. Convert the Brittmore facility, once the lease has expired, to a recyclable material transfer facility. 3. Construct a temporary transfer facility for recyclable materials at the South Environmental Service Center. Permitting may be an issue. 4. Identify a warehouse that could be utilized temporarily for transferring recyclable materials. Permitting may be an issue. Neighborhood Depository/Recycling Centers The City operates six neighborhood depositories that also collect recyclables, and three recycling centers to provide Houston residents a convenient opportunity to drop off junk, tree, and recyclable materials. City of Houston residents may use the facilities up to four times per month; however, contractors and commercial businesses are prohibited from using the facilities. Citizens are required to unload their own materials. Accepted materials include:

▪ Junk waste: appliances, up to five tires, heavy trash, tree ▪ Glass bottles and jars waste ▪ Paper ▪ Aluminum and tin cans ▪ Cardboard ▪ Household plastic containers No. 1 through 5, and 7 ▪ Used motor oil Clothes and shoes are accepted at the North, Southeast, and Northeast Depositories. A list of all neighborhood depositories and recycling centers are listed in Table 2-10.

Table 2-10 Neighborhood Depositories and Recycling Centers Facility Location Neighborhood Depositories1 North 9003 N Main, 77002 Northwest 14400 Sommermeyer, 77041 Northeast 5565 Kirkpatrick, 77028 South 5100 Sunbeam, 77033 Southwest 10785 SW Freeway, 77074 Southeast 2240 Central Street, 77017 City Recycling Centers Westpark Recycling Center2 5900 Westpark, 77057 Clear Lake/Ellington Airport3 246 Loop Rd., 77034 Kingwood Recycling Center4 3210 W Lake Houston Pkwy., 77339 1. Hours of Operation: 9 am – 6 pm, Wednesday – Sunday. 2. Hours of Operation: 8 am – 5 pm, Monday – Saturday 3. Open 7 days a week 4. Open on weekends only, Friday – Sunday Houston Depository / Recycling Facility Summaries Table 2-11 provides a summary of the quantities of materials that are accepted at the City’s Environmental Service Centers, depositories, and recycling centers. Table 2-11 Facility Collections (2017) Reuse Warehouse Donations 988,727 pounds Chemical Swap Shop & Restore 313,854 pounds ESC Electronics Reused/Recycled 60,855 pounds Drop-off locations 3,332 tons The Environmental Service Centers (ESC) provide drive-through drop-off locations for Houston residents to bring their household hazardous waste (HHW) such as anti-freeze, batteries, fuel, oil, paint, paint thinner, pesticides, herbicides, and household cleaners. Residential electronic scrap items are accepted (monitors, televisions, printers, keyboards, mice, scanners, fax machines, telephone handsets, VCRs, CPUs, cellular phones, and other small consumer electronics). These items should not be placed on the curb for collection with garbage or tree waste / junk waste pickup. Clean, white Styrofoam blocks (plastic #6) are also accepted at the ESC-South location; however, packing “peanuts” are not accepted. The increased adoption and use of electronic products have led to a stream of new products with relatively short life spans. Electronic products are made from precious and special metals, including gold, silver, palladium, and platinum, as well as potentially toxic substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and beryllium. Therefore, responsible end-of-life management of e-waste is vital in order to recover valuable components and properly manage hazardous and toxic components. End-of-Life management of e-waste includes the reuse of functional electronics, refurbishment and repair of electronics, recovery of electronic components, recycling e-waste, and disposal. The City’s curbside recycling collection service is limited to apartment communities containing eight or fewer units. For residents residing in multi-family complexes with greater than eight units, recycling services through the City are limited to use of the Neighborhood Depository/Recycling Centers described above (Table 2-10). Otherwise, multi-family complexes could contract directly with a private hauler for recycling collection. No data are available regarding the number of multi-family complexes that may contract with a private provider for recycling collection services.

Public Education & Information Program The Solid Waste Department has a Public Information Officer to assist in promoting current programs and practices. There is also a Community Outreach Division with individuals who attend community events and communicate public services information on behalf of the Solid Waste Department, among other topics. Public Information Officers are tasked with promoting the neighborhood depositories and environmental service centers managed by the Solid Waste Department, providing general information to the public concerning trash and recycling. It should be noted that Solid Waste Management Department Public Information Officer and Community Outreach teams provide information to the public on all City The City’s public information and solid waste services including disaster information; program changes; community outreach program is also addressing illegal dumping concerns; litter abatement and regular active within the City of Houston’s collection schedule changes due to holiday or weather delays. These Independent School District, and they responsibilities are in addition to the following services provided by the host an annual “Growing Up SWMD. Recycling” Cart decorating contest.

▪ Responding to requests for public information under Texas Public Information Act requests; ▪ Responding to requests for presentations and assistance to the Mayor’s Office of Special Events for trash and recycling collection for things like 4th of July fireworks, the Houston marathon, and various parades; and ▪ Partnering with Keep Houston Beautiful on community clean-up efforts There are currently no employees dedicated solely to recycling education. Funding for the City’s Public Information Programs include private sector partners contributing to education. Specifically, Living Earth pays the City $0.10 per bag of mulch sold, which contributes to recycling education. The FCC contract explicitly states that FCC will provide a financial contribution of $100,000 per year to support education efforts to increase awareness about recycling in the City and will fund $20,000 per year in educational programs operated by FCC. The SWMD has also been successful in securing grants from the Houston Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), which is a region- wide voluntary association of local governments in the 13-county Gulf Coast Planning region of Texas, and other agencies to sponsor public information and other waste minimization and recycling programs. According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation report, published in May 2018, cities should expect to spend about $1 per household on educational campaigns, or $3 to $4 per household if the campaign addresses changes to an existing recycling program.1 The Project Team researched the marketing/public outreach budgets for the following communities. ▪ Dallas, Texas: Based on their FY 2019 budget, transfer community outreach activities related to their Zero Waste program from Sanitation Services is budgeted at $1,042,971. This amounts to approximately $4.34 per household. ▪ Fort Worth, Texas: According to the City of Fort Worth’s FY 2019 budget, the Solid Waste fund has 5 functional areas, one of which is community education which delivers public education and outreach. Although the budget did not indicate total costs associated with solid waste specific outreach, it is worth noting that the City also maintains a separate Community and Public Engagement Department that is tasked with public outreach on behalf of all City departments. ▪ Austin, Texas: Austin Resource Recovery Department maintains a Waste Diversion program for activities associated with strategic initiatives. The FY 2019 budget for their Waste Diversion program is budgeted at approximately $2.5 million. This amounts to approximately $12.38 per household.

Waste Minimization & Reuse Programs In the full lifecycle of any product, there are three main segments: up-stream, mid-stream, and down-stream. The up-stream Reducing waste generation is by far the segment of a product’s lifecycle involves the manufacturing most environmentally beneficial action process itself, where manufacturers determine which materials Houston residents and businesses can and how much material will be used to manufacture and package do to reduce environmental impacts. It the product. The mid-stream segment of a product’s lifecycle is also by far the most cost-effective for focuses on the longevity of the product, including reuse and the City. Waste that is not generated, repurposing of products. The down-stream segment of a does not have to be collected, product’s lifecycle focuses on recovery, including recycling or processed, or disposed. For the energy recovery. By nature of the role of local government, the commercial sector, waste minimization down-stream segment of a product’s lifecycle is the point of improves profit margins. greatest direct impact. However, local governments can, to some degree, influence the up-stream and mid-stream segments of a product’s lifecycle, before the materials arrive at a local government facility, by promoting waste prevention, reduction, and reuse. Grasscycling programs are one of the simplest ways to divert organic materials from the MSW stream. Grasscycling programs encourage residents to leave grass clippings on their lawns instead of bagging and disposing of them. Grasscycling diverts a portion of the waste stream and provides an excellent source of nutrients for the lawn. Yard waste makes up more than 30% of the total residential waste stream in Houston. Research has shown that lawns generate approximately 300 pounds of grass clippings per 1,000 square feet annually, which amounts to 6.5 tons per acre each year.1 Green Building Resource Center The GBRC offers over 50 educational displays, a library of information, samples of recycled materials for green building and in-home energy conservation and also highlights the impacts of recycling. Building Materials Reuse Warehouse The Building Materials Reuse Warehouse, located at 9003 North Main St., opened in April 2009 as a program of the City’s SWMD. The Reuse Warehouse is funded in part by a waste reduction grant from the H-GAC. It benefits the community by providing space for excess building materials that would otherwise be disposed in local landfills, while also fostering a culture of reuse and expanding partnerships between community stakeholders. In 2018, the Reuse Warehouse collected a total of 998,000 pounds of bitumen, cardboard, ceramics, concrete, doors, glass, masonry, metals, wood, plastics, and other construction materials. Chemical Swap Shop & ReStore The City’s Chemical Swap Shop and ReStore are operated by the SWMD and are located at the Environmental Service Center (ESC) South location. Every Friday, between 9 am and 12 pm, household chemicals and paint that were brought to the ESC South location for disposal but appear to be in good condition, are made available for citizen reuse. Citizens may take away these items at no charge; however, there is a limit of six chemical items and five gallons of paint per week. The ReStore serves as a book swap, a recycling information library, as well as a repository for craft items and post- consumer and post-industrial scrap; and also makes items available to the public during the Reuse Chemical Take-Away.

1 https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/grasscycling 22

Recycling & Organics Residential Yard Waste and Tree Waste Collection The City collects yard waste (grass clippings, leaves, small branches) in City-approved compostable plastic bags, weekly. The City also collects large tree debris curbside in odd numbered months. Both services are provided to the single-family residents served by the SWMD. These materials are hauled to a private contractor for mulch and composting. The current vendor is Living Earth/LETCO, which has several compost and mulch processing facilities across Houston. In FY 2018, the City reported collecting approximately 9,397 tons of yard waste and 21,215 tons of tree waste from single-family residences. Table 2-12 provides green waste collected by the City in 2016-2018. FY 2018 quantities are about a 44% reduction from the previous year because the City discontinued green waste collection for most of the year in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. The 2018 data represent approximately 0.8 tons of yard waste and tree waste per single family household per year. The City Parks Department reported hauling 990 Tons of vegetative material from parks during the six months between December 2019 and May 2019, the only months for which data were collected. Yard waste and tree waste generated in the City in areas not served by City collection may be hauled by landscapers or contract haulers to landfills or compost/mulch facilities.

Table 2-12 Green Waste Collected by City of Houston (Tons) Year Yard Waste Tree Waste Total

FY 2016 14,159 38,611 52,770

FY 2017 15,412 39,157 54,569

FY 2018 9,397 21,215 30,612

FY 2019 10,756 35,474 46,230

FY 2020 11,208 45,928 57,136

Neighborhood Depository Green Waste Drop-Off Residents may drop off yard waste and tree waste at any of six neighborhood depositories. Backyard Composting and Grasscycling The City promotes on its website that residents may avoid the expense of compostable bags for grass clippings by practicing grasscycling. The City also supports a Master Composter Certification program which trains residents in proper backyard composting techniques and provides certification to those who complete the training and promote backyard composting in the community. In 2018 the City certified 13 Master Composters. The City also began selling backyard compost bins to residents in 2015. Food Residual Recovery The City does not provide the collection of either pre-consumer or post-consumer food residuals for recovery. It participated in a study of pre-consumer food residual collection through H-GAC and is supportive of efforts by H-GAC to facilitate food residuals collection for recovery. This program has not yet been fully implemented. Biosolids Diversion The City contracts with FCC Environmental Services to haul approximately 30% of its biosolids, or approximately 32,000 tons per year, to landfills for disposal. The remainder is processed into a fertilizer-like product by a private entity.

Overall Diversion Rate Per the 2019 Waste Generation Report, total tonnage generated within the City was estimated using a combination of data sources provided by the City, as well as data from H-GAC. It is important to note that the total tonnage amount generated includes MSW, recycling, yard waste, and construction & demolition (C&D) tonnage. Based on the data summarized in 2019, the City has a total estimated diversion rate of approximately 32.4%. The diversion rate is significantly higher than the residential curbside diversion rate of 14.83% largely due to diversion of C&D waste, which is described in greater detail in Part II, Section 5. Table 2-13 states the City’s recycling rate with the recycling rates for other Texas cities, which was aggregated using FY 2019 budget information for the City and each of the benchmark communities. The City’s residential sector generates comparable amounts of MSW compared to similar major cities. Table 6-13 provides a comparison of the tons of MSW, recyclables and brush/bulky waste collected by other cities. ▪ With the exception of Austin, Houston residents generate comparable amounts of MSW per household. ▪ The amount of material collected per household as part of the City’s residential recycling program is lower than other cities. The City’s recycling program was interrupted by Hurricane Harvey. ▪ Houston’s budget per household for solid waste services is roughly half of the amounts budgeted by San Antonio, Dallas, and Austin. The levels of service may vary but, in general, the City’s budget is significantly underfunded in comparison to these other cities. ▪ Houston also has approximately half the number of solid waste workers per household than the cities referenced above, with the exception of Fort Worth, which has a private firm provide collection services. Table 2-13 Waste & Recycling Collection Comparison to Other Cities (FY 2018) City Houston San Antonio1 Dallas Fort Worth3 Austin Households Served 390,798 356,000 240,000 225,049 200,550 Annual MSW (Tons) 445,397 2 384,000 246,000 247,333 128,829 Annual Bulky Waste (Tons) 195,800 32,574 132,000 22,600 11,179 Annual Recyclables (Tons) 36,595 61,186 57,600 42,978 48,080 Annual Organics (Tons) 69,769 135,629 40,000 37,778 42,825 Total Tons 747,561 613,389 475,600 350,689 230,913 Annual MSW/HH (pounds) 2263 2153.5 2044 2190 1277.5 Annual Bulky Waste/HH (pounds) 985.5 182.5 1095 219 109.5 Annual Recyclables / HH (pounds) 182.5 328.5 474.5 365 474.5 Annual Daily Organics/HH (pounds) 365 766.5 328.5 328.5 438

Total 3759.5 3431 3978.5 3102.5 2299.5 Annual Budget ($ MM) 84.9 145 112.6 67.7 97.1 Annual Budget $ / HH 214 407 469 301 484 1. San Antonio only provides 2 per year bulky waste collection service events 2. Bulky waste numbers for Houston reflect Hurricane Harvey impacts 3. Fort Worth relies on private sector collection contractor for residential collection

Energy & Resource Recovery Existing Program There are technologies available to convert MSW to useful energy. The technologies used today are much more sophisticated in terms of environmental protection compared to incinerators of the past. Incineration of waste without

energy recovery was once a preferred method of significantly decreasing the volume of waste that requires disposal. In fact, there was an incinerator operating in Houston for solid waste management. This facility closed many years ago. Many MSW landfills in the region convert landfill gas to energy. Landfill gas is generated as a result of decomposition of the organic portion of the waste in a landfill. Landfill gas is about half methane which can be used as a fuel, either directly or indirectly through the generation of electricity. Landfills in the state of Texas are required to have a landfill gas management plan that addresses how these gases will be managed. Landfills are also required to implement gas control measures as part of their operating plans. As presented in the Facilities Report, there are seven regional landfills with energy recovery programs shown in Table 2-14. Landfills that have landfill gas energy recovery systems include the following.

Table 2-14 Energy Recovery from LFG Projects (Source TCEQ MSW Annual Report)

Gas Distributed Power Generated Power generated Gas Processed Facility County Off-Site (million and Sold and used onsite (million cubic ft.) cubic ft.) (million kWh) (million kWh) Security Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Montgomery 22.4 22.7 Blue Ridge Landfill Gas Compressor Station Brazoria 1,347 0 42.3 2.2 Fort Bend Landfill Gas Treatment Facility Fort Bend 410 225 0 0 Coastal Plains Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Galveston 0 0 25 26.7 McCarty Road Landfill Gas Recovery Facility Harris 2,493 1,401 Atascocita Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Harris Ameresco McCarty Energy Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Harris 1,045 1,045 Total 5,295 2,671 89.7 51.6 There are alternative technologies to landfill disposal of waste. These options are at various stages of technological development and have varying environmental impacts and financial feasibility. Disposal In March 2020, the City signed two agreements for transfer station services and landfill disposal. Republic Services/BFI will provide operational management of the city’s 3 transfer stations as well as landfill disposal of Type I (MSW) and Type IV (C&D material) solid waste. The landfills are McCarty Road in Northeast Houston; Blue Ridge Landfill in Fresno/South Houston on FM 521; and Whispering Pines Landfill in Northeast Houston (as necessary). Based on current routing and ease of disposal, Republic/BFI will receive about 90% of waste via transfer station or direct haul. Waste Management will provide Type I and IV landfill and transfer station services at the following sites: Atascocita Landfill in Far North Houston near Kingwood; Hawthorne Park landfill in Northwest Houston on Tanner Road at Beltway 8; and the Koenig Street Waste Management Transfer Station in Pasadena, Texas. Based on current routing and ease of disposal, Waste Management will receive about 10% of waste via transfer station or direct haul. Both contracts are for 5-year terms with one 5-year renewal for a 10-year potential total term (Table 2-15).

▪ The Waste Management contract is worth an estimated $43 million for the 10-year term (10% of waste). ▪ The BFI/Republic contract is worth an estimated $240 million for the 10-year term (90% of waste). 25

Table 2-15 Negotiated Landfill and Transfer Station Rates

Old Rate Negotiated Rate Sites Reported per day (per ton) (per ton)

WM Landfill ATAS Comp $26.49 $26.80

WM Transfer Station - $34.50

COH Trans Stations Comp $26.47 $25.11

BFI/RWS Landfills Comp $26.47 $25.11

Illegal Dumping Illegal dump sites are cleaned up by the junk waste Figure 2-6 collection crews which operate illegal dump clean-up Locations of Illegal Dump Sites activities only in odd-numbered months. The two Reported 2017-May 7, 2019 agencies that cooperatively identify and report illegal dumping activity to the City for clean-up are the Department of Neighborhoods Inspection and Public Service Division and the Houston Police Department (HPD). When the public calls the 311 call center to report illegal dump sites, the call center directs them to the Department of Neighborhoods. Illegal dump sites identified by the HPD are also forwarded to the Department of Neighborhoods. The Department of Neighborhoods refers the information collected by both agencies to the SWMD who cleans up the illegally dumped material. The Harris County Environmental Crimes Unit may also enforce Class B misdemeanors and above inside the City. Figure 2-6 is a map prepared by Neighborhood Services of illegal dump sites reported between the beginning of 2017 and May 7, 2019. The SWMD removed 230 tons from illegal dumps reported to HPD from March 2018 through June 2019. The HPD Environmental Investigation Unit may write citations or refer cases to municipal Court (<5 lb.) or the District Attorney (>5 lb.). Many illegal dumps occur on a resident’s own property and are reported to Code Enforcement who issues a fine. Frequently, the resident then moves the material off of his or her property to another location where it is considered an illegal dump site. Illegally dumped wastes on vacant lots or other public areas attract more dumping at that location by additional violators. 26

The number of illegal dump sites within the City is high for several reasons. 1. Many residents do not know how to legally dispose of municipal solid waste either through the regular residential collection system or special collections for excess wastes, tree waste and heavy trash. In many cases this is due to the lack of appropriate public information reaching immigrants who come from cultures where wastes are handled differently, those who do not speak English and those who are illiterate in any language. It is not possible to provide public information regarding how to legally dispose of municipal solid waste using billboards because there is a City ordinance prohibiting the City from using billboards for any purpose. 2. Many residents are not able to access one of the six depositories during the four days per week that they are open. Some residents may be turned away for lack of proper documentation. 3. Enforcement mechanisms are slow, and cases are frequently dismissed in the Courts. When fines are issued by the courts, it is often long after the illegal dumping occurred. It is difficult to link cause (dumping) and effect (fines or imprisonment). Opportunities to issue immediate citations are limited. Effective enforcement is lacking. When Class A and Class B misdemeanors are referred to the District Attorney, the City has typically cleaned up the dump site by the time the matter is seen by a judge. At that time, judges typically dismiss cases because the illegal dump site is no longer creating a public nuisance. Judges are more willing to issue fines for hazardous waste violations and dump truck tires than for dumping municipal solid waste. Although Code Enforcement can issue fines for code violations, they cannot issue fines for illegal dumping even though the responsible parties are often identified. The HPD has Differential Response Teams who perform community policing using both traditional and non-traditional policing methods to address community crime. This team could get more involved in preventing illegal dumping. The HPD Community Liaison could also address illegal dumping; however, this position is currently vacant. The HPD Environmental Investigation Unit manages and monitors cameras to identify environmental crimes. This program has been successful at identifying illegal dump sites and identifying responsible parties. They currently have 25 cameras but more cameras and staff to monitor them are needed. Instead, cases are currently referred to the District Attorney.

Table 2-16 Comparison of Illegal Dumping (Houston & Fort Worth) Sites Reported Average Time to City Dedicated Trucks Enforcement Fine per day Clean Up

Houston 34 84 Days 0 (Tree Crews, District Attorney for Typically, $250 by only odd numbered >5 lb.; JP or Muni D.A. for 1st offence months) Court for < 5 lb.

Fort Worth 18 80% <48 working 5 (2-man crews) Code Enforcement $554 for <1000 lb. hours Officer Citation

The Department of Neighborhoods database, as of May 7, 2019, included 17,283 illegal dump sites reported over a period of 508 days, averaging 34 reports per calendar day (some of which are duplicate reports). The sites that have been addressed and closed averaged 84 days from the date they were reported to the Department of Neighborhoods until they were cleaned up, or 54 days beyond the target of 30 days.

3.0 Houston Background Background Key Points ▪ The City’s boundaries incorporate a total area of 671 square miles, meaning the City’s solid waste collection system provides service to an extremely broad service area. ▪ The City’s land use is diverse, lacking major concentrated areas of residential housing; affecting the efficiency of waste collection. ▪ Houston’s climate and weather conditions have had a dramatic impact on solid waste management resources in recent years – Hurricane Harvey generated approximately 1.1 million tons of disaster debris affecting regional landfill capacity and placing a significant strain on Houston’s collection services. ▪ The City’s transportation system is one of the most congested in the country. This increases the time required to haul waste from points of collection to either a transfer station or a landfill. ▪ Houston is the 4th largest City in the U.S., with a population of 2.38 million people. The City’s population is anticiapted to increase to 3.04 million by 2040. ▪ Housing trends show an increased percentage of Houston residents living in multi-family households versus single family households. ▪ Current employment is approximately 1.9 million and projected to increase to 2.4 million by 2040. Geography & Land Use

Figure 3-1 City of Houston & Extra Territorial Jurisdiction Source: City of Houston Planning & Development Department

At 671 square miles, the City of Houston could contain the combined land area of the cities of New York, Washington DC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Miami.

Houston is located on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The City’s boundaries include a total area of 671 square miles. (Figure 3-1). This expansive area impacts the distances that solid waste collection crews must travel to collect waste and recycling and haul to either transfer stations, recycling facilities or landfills, and then return to their collection routes. Houston is primarily located in Harris County. Portions of the City are also located in Fort Bend and Montgomery Counties. Houston’s Land Use Map (Figure 3-2), prepared by Houston Planning and Development Department, illustrates a city that has a distribution of residential, commercial, institutional, and public spaces throughout the City. The lack of concentration of residential housing creates an additional strain on the City’s collection program.

Figure 3-2 Houston Land Use Map

Source: City of Houston Planning & Development Department (2019) Climate & Topography The City’s climate is predominantly marine. The terrain includes numerous small streams and bayous. Prevailing winds are from the southeast and south, except in January when frequent high pressure areas bring invasions of polar air and prevailing winds are from the north. (Source: Soil Survey of Harris County U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1996.)

“The Harris County Flood Control District's drainage and Figure 3-3 Harris County Floodplains flood control infrastructure is extensive, including more Source: Harris County Flood Control District (2019) than 1,500 channels totaling about 2,500 miles in length (about the distance from Los Angeles to New York). Nature also challenges us with flat terrain, clay soils that do not absorb water very well and an average annual rainfall of 48 inches. The flooding problems in the community are severe. Flooding is Harris County's most significant natural disaster. Several hundred thousand homes and businesses are in the identified floodplain (not all flooding areas are identified), and projects to reduce the risk of flooding are estimated to cost in the billions of dollars.” (Source: Our Infrastructure & Area Challenges Harris County Flood Control District, 2019).

The City has experienced numerous severe storm events over the past several years, including the following. (Source: “Our Soaked History” Harris County Flood Control District, 2017)

Table 3-1 Major Houston Area Storms 1990s 2000s 2010s 1992 2001 2012 March- major storm floods more than June – Tropical Storm Allison strikes first July – High water rescues along Cypress, 1,500 structures and many bayous are out on June 5, then returns three days later Little Cypress and Willow Creeks after of banks. Much of I-10 is underwater. for a second round of storms. Texas several days of heavy rainfall beginning Medical Center essentially shut down. July 9. More than 70 structures flood in North Downtown Houston decimated. northern Harris County. Two million people impacted. 22 lives lost. More than 70,000 structures flood. Damages top $5 billion. 1996 2006 2014 October – Major storm hits Harris County. June 19 – Rainfall on already saturated August – Slow-moving rains drench Twice as many structures flood than in the ground floods 3,370 homes 561 portions of Harris County with 3.5-4.5 1992 storm. Most bayous are out of apartments and one nursing home. inches. In the Greens Bayou watershed banks. Mostly along Berry and Sims bayous. 109 structures flood. Rainfall 8-10 inches in three hours. 1998 2008 2015 September – Tropical Storm Frances September Hurricane Ike, 3rd costliest in May 25-27 – Memorial Day Flood. More causes extensive flooding along White US history, strikes Galveston Island. than 6,000 structures flood. Seven Oak Bayou and other bayous. More than Eleven deaths in Harris County. Storms fatalities. Highest rainfall recorded in 1,300 structures flood. surge swamps 2,500 structures; rainfall Buffalo and Brays watersheds. Nearly 11 causes 1,200 more structures to flood. inches in 3 hours on Brays Bayou. More than $29 billion in damage 1998 2009 2016 October & November Adding insult to April 17-29 bring extensive flooding; five April 17-18 – Tax Day Flood. Historic injury, two more major storms flood children drown when a car goes into a flood over northern and western Harris hundreds more structures damaged in Greens Bayou tributary. Some highways county results in seven fatalities. Average Harris County. close. Record high water on Bear, 12-16 inches of rain in 12 hours county- Langham, Mayde Creeks. 2,305 wide – record pool levels in Addicks and structures flood on Langham Creek and Barker reservoirs. Estimated 9,820 Buffalo Bayou. structures flood in Harris County 2016 May 25-26 Memorial Day Flood. North and northwest Harris County hit with 8-13 inches of rain. Overbanked and structural flooding on Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto River. More than 400 structures flood in Harris County. 2017 August 23 – September 15 Hurricane Harvey. A category 5 Hurricane dumped 50 inches of rain on the City of Houston. Caused significant flooding throughout the City and was declared a national emergency.

Hurricane Harvey Figure 3-4 Hurricane Harvey Rainfall Source: National Weather Service (2019) Hurricane Harvey impacted the Houston area between August 23 and September 15, 2017. The storm dumped approximately 50 inches of rain on the City of Houston and caused significant damage. The City is still recovering from this hurricane event. According to FEMA, the hurricane resulted in approximately 13 million cubic yards of debris over its entire area. In the H-GAC region, the impact on landfills was approximately 1.1 million tons of debris (10% of a year’s total generation for the region). Transportation System Roadways There are over 16,000 lane-miles of streets in Houston that are the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department. The City’s Congestion along Houston’s roadways adds transportation system includes major highways considerable time for the SWMD. including IH 45, IH 610, IH 10, IH 69/US 59 (Source: Urban Mobility Report Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2019). A recent Texas A&M study estimated that drivers in Houston spent 75 hours of delay time on Houston’s roadways annually. These delays contribute significantly to the amount of time required to haul waste and resources from the point of collection to transfer stations, recycling facilities or landfills. Houston ranks 9th in the U.S. for delay time on roadways. Truck Congestion Cost—The value of increased travel time and other operating costs of large trucks is estimated at $52.14 per hour of truck time. The extra diesel consumed using state average cost per gallon associated with Houston is estimated to be $548 million per year. As congestion increases, there will be a need for both additional routes and additional transfer stations within SWMD.

Figures 3-5 and 3-6 present the projected congestion maps as presented in the H-GAC 2045 Mobility Plan. The City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), miles traveled are expected to increase by 84%. Figure 3-5 2020 Congestion Figure 3-6 2045 Congestion Source: HGAC 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Source: HGAC 2045 Regional Transportation Plan (2019) (2019)

Rail Network Houston is a Union Pacific Railway hub for six lines, linking the region with the Louisiana Gulf Coast, Midwest, West Coast, and Mexico. BNSF Railway primarily serves the north and east portions of Texas and connects them to the more northern Gulf ports, including Houston, Galveston, and Beaumont. The Kansas City Southern system has 908 miles of track operating in the state (including the Tex Mex, which KCS acquired in 2004), and is limited to other rail connections in Laredo, Corpus Christi, Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Beaumont. (Source: TxDOT) Intermodal connectors link rail yards, seaports, airports, trucking and distribution facilities where the transfer of freight is completed on-site. Access to and from these intermodal facilities is along local roadways that connect to the state’s highway freight corridors and serve as the last mile for freight movement. Freight intermodal connectors in Texas include 23 airport/truck, 39 port/truck, 18 truck/pipeline and 20 truck/rail connectors. Rail lines in Texas, together with trucking, support the intermodal freight transportation system for the state. Both UP and BNSF have rail lines located in the City of Houston. Intermodal facilities located in Houston are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 NHS Truck / Rail Intermodal Facilities (2013) Facility Connector Description Empire Truck lines Container Yard, Houston Wallisville Road (IH 610 to Oates) Howard Industries, Inc. Served by an existing NHS Route / Industrial Blvd Maurice Pincoffs Co. Inc., Served by an existing NHS Route / Jacinto Port Blvd. UP Settegast Yard Kirkpatrick Blvd between the Terminal and I-610 UPS Sweetwater Lane Facility 2 Canino (IH 45 to Sweetwater Ln) Source: 2016 Texas Rail Plan Update TXDOT

NHS – National Highway System Figure 3-7 presents the Texas State Rail map for 2016. The map illustrates major freight lines located in the Houston- Galveston area.

Figure 3-7 Houston-Galveston Areas Rail Lines Source: Texas State Road Map TxDOT (2019)

COUNTY SEATS

BNSF

TXPF KCS Other Railroads County Boundary

National Or State Boundary

District Boundary

TMA Metropolitan Area Boundary

Non – TMA Metropolitan Area Boundary

Houston Port Houston is also home to The Houston Ship Channel, one of the nation’s largest seaports which is experiencing tremendous growth. The Houston region is the country’s number one region for exports and is home to the largest petrochemical manufacturing complex in the Americas. Energy production and the export of crude oil, along with the increasing global demand for chemicals produced in the region, are major drivers of the Port’s success. Largely because of petrochemical activity along the 52-mile ship channel, the nearly 200 private companies that make up the Greater Port of Houston have helped make the port the No. 1 U.S. port in foreign waterborne tonnage. Petroleum and petroleum products are leading import and export commodities. More than 200 million short tons of international cargo were handled in 2018 alone. The economic impact of the Greater Port nationally includes 3.2 million jobs, $801.9 billion in economic value and more than $38.1 billion in tax revenue. (Source: Port Houston) The activity at the Port represents a major source of waste, including special wastes that require special handling and disposal.

Demographics Population The City of Houston is the fourth largest city in the US. With a population of over 2.38 million people, the City HOUSTON POPULATION has grown steadily over the past 60 years. In 1960, the 3,500,000 City’s population was 938,219. By 1990, the time when 3,000,000 the last major solid waste management plan was completed for the City, the population was 1.63 million 2,500,000 people. This growth rate has affected the amounts of 2,000,000 waste generated in the City and the need for more waste and resource management infrastructure. The City’s 1,500,000 population is anticipated to continue to inrease at a 1,000,000 signficant pace over the next 20 years. By 2040, the 500,000 estimated population is anticipated to be 3.04 million. 0 Table 3-3 summarizes population projections for the 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 City of Houston using H-GAC’s forecast. Figure 3-8 Houston Population Projections Source: U.S. Census & H-GAC

Table 3-3 City of Houston Population Forecast 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population Single-Family 1,313,556 1,316,795 1,336,256 1,362,049 1,383,652 1,395,743 Multi-Family 1,070,119 1,090,697 1,199,631 1,326,114 1,503,522 1,649,287 Total Population 2,383,675 2,407,492 2,535,887 2,688,163 2,887,174 3,045,030

The compounded annual growth rates applied in each 5-year increment of the population forecast are noted below: ▪ 2015 – 2020: 1.00% ▪ 2030 – 2035: 1.44% ▪ 2020 – 2025: 1.04% ▪ 2035 – 2040: 1.07% ▪ 2025 – 2030: 1.17%

Households H-GAC estimates the annual demand for housing units and non-residential space based on the forecasted change in the number of households and jobs. H-GAC also projects the future percentage of single-family and multi-family housing units (both current and future construction). For instance, the percentage of multi-family housing is projected to increase in future years, as a percentage of total housing units. Currently, the ratio between single-family (SF) and multi-family (MF) housing is approximately 1:1; however, H-GAC predicts that housing will reflect a SF:MF Ratio of 2:3 for the City of Houston by 2040. Table 3-4 summarizes household projections for the City of Houston using H-GAC’s forecast.

Table 3-4 City of Houston Household Forecast 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Households Single-Family 462,736 464,696 474,620 484,756 495,109 505,683 Multi-Family 478,538 488,601 540,884 599,117 682,942 758,524 Total Households 941,274 953,297 1,015,504 1,083,873 1,178,051 1,264,207 Source: H-GAC The compounded annual growth rates applied for each 5-year increment of the total household forecast are noted below: 1 2015 – 2020: 1.28% 4 2030 – 2035: 1.68% 2 2020 – 2025: 1.27% 5 2035 – 2040: 1.42% 3 2025 – 2030: 1.31% Employment Table 3-5 summarizes employment Figure 3-9 Houston Employment Occupation projections for the City of Houston using H- Source Houston Planning and Development Department (2017) GAC’s forecast. Figure 3-9 illustrates the changing nature of employment from 2000 to 2017. H-GAC forecasts employment based on residential population, the unemployment rate, and a third parameter that controls labor force participation (i.e. age, disability, family responsibilities, etc.). In the base year of the forecast (2015), jobs were linked to specific locations (i.e. individual buildings) by matching companies and parcel addresses. H-GAC additionally utilizes a Real Estate Development Model to generate forecasts associating specific construction projects to specific parcels of land, given the physical availability of land, as well as the economic feasibility of each construction project in forecasting future employment.

Table 3-5 City of Houston Employment Forecast 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Employment 1,882,233 1,903,278 2,037,272 2,187,204 2,306,186 2,368,224 Source: H-GAC

The compounded annual growth rates applied for each 5-year increment of the employment forecast are noted below: 2015 – 2020: 1.12% 2030 – 2035: 1.07% 2020 – 2025: 1.37% 2035 – 2040: 0.53% 2025 – 2030: 1.43%

4.0 Waste Generation & Diversion Assessment Key Points: 1 It is estimated that City-wide, the recycling rate is approximately 32% which includes private sector recycling activities, organics processing and construction/demolition waste recovery and recycling. The 32% is equal to approximately 2 million tons per year. 2 The FY 2019 recovery rate for City residential programs is estimated to be 137,500 tons per year through single stream recycling, recycling centers and tree and yard waste collection and processing. 3 The City provides direct collection service to 390,786 residences. In 2019, the amount of waste collected was 643,000 tons, or 1,760 tons per day. This is equal to 8.9 pounds per household per day, or 1.6 tons per year. 4 Over 65% of the waste stream is generated by businesses and institutions, not including multi-family complexes. 5 Multi-family waste generation is equal to 626,600 tons per year. Housing patterns in Houston point to a greater percentage of individuals living in apartments and other multi-family dwellings in the near future. 6 In 2018, the City’s residents, businesses, and institutions, generated approximately 4.2 million tons of MSW that was disposed in landfills. This is equal to 11,500 tons per day. 7 Storm events such as Hurricane Harvey can have a significant impact on the quantities of waste generated in any given year. It is estimated that on a regional basis, Hurricane Harvey generated approximately 1.1 million tons of waste that went into regional landfills. Disposal Forecast

As a starting point in the planning process, the Project Team evaluated the findings of the H-GAC 2017 Study – A Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Diversion Forecast for the H-GAC Region (“2017 H-GAC Study”). A portion of the City’s single-family household population is not currently served by SWMD. Approximately 84% of all single-family households located within the City of Houston are currently served by the SWMD. The remaining 16% are collected through subscription services. Waste generation tonnage (i.e. garbage, bulky waste, yard waste, and recycling) collected by the SWMD was provided for FY 2016 through FY 2018 and is summarized in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 City of Houston Single-Family Waste Generation1 FY 20162 FY 2017 FY 20183 # of Single-Family (SF) Households Served 386,232 386,531 386,830 SF Garbage (tons/year) 385,660 431,717 445,397 SF Bulky Waste (tons/year) 287,064 174,742 195,829 SF Yard Waste (tons/year) 54,479 54,569 30,612 SF Recycling (tons/year) 62,287 51,497 36,595 Total 789,490 712,525 708,433 1. This is tonnage that is collected by the SWMD. 2. FY 2016 metrics, from the 2017 H-GAC Study, concerning the number of single-family homes and curbside recycling tonnage were modified slightly based on more accurate data that were provided by the City as part of this report. 3. The recycling and yard waste tonnage decreased in FY 2018 due to Hurricane Harvey and the City of Houston having to suspend these specific collection services for several months to focus on debris clean up. Table 4-2 identifies the City’s single-family per-capita rates for both disposal and diversion. Due to slight differences in population and household forecasts between H-GAC’s current forecast and 2017 H-GAC Study, the FY 2016 per-capita calculations for the City are adjusted slightly downward from those noted in the 2017 H-GAC Study. It is also worthwhile

to note that after Hurricane Harvey impacted the City in August 2017 (FY 2018), the City of Houston’s Solid Waste Management Department briefly suspended curbside collection of yard waste, and single-stream recycling. Therefore, the per capita metrics for FY 2018 were not representative of a typical year, and the per-capita ratios used to forecast waste disposal for FY 2019 – FY 2040 are based on the averages of FY 2016 and FY 2017.

Table 4-2 Single-Family Per-Capita Disposal and Diversion (Tons/Person)1 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Average per Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Capita2 SF Disposal SF Garbage 0.3540 0.3942 0.4049 0.3741 SF Bulky Waste 0.2635 0.1596 0.1780 0.2115 SF Disposal Sub Total 0.6175 0.5538 0.5829 0.5856 SF Diversion SF Recycling 0.0572 0.0470 0.0333 0.0521 SF Yard & Wood Waste 0.0500 0.0498 0.0278 0.0499 SF Diversion Sub Total 0.1072 0.0968 0.0611 0.1020 Total Generation 0.7247 0.6506 0.6440 0.6876 1. Example: 385,660 tons (Table 3-1, 2016, Single-Family MSW / 1,089,544 SF Population (Table 3-2) = 0.3540 tons per person per year 2. The average per-capita generation rates used to forecast waste disposal in this analysis are based on the averages of FY 2016 & FY 2017.

Residential Disposal Forecast The single-family waste disposal forecast for 2019 through 2040 is based on the calculated disposal rates and single family population forecasts. The per capita disposal rate is held constant for the entire forecast, which is a similar approach utilized in the 2017 H-GAC Study. Due to limitations in the availability of multi-family specific data, the same per-capita disposal rate for single-family and multi-family units were used. This is a conservative approach that is also consistent with the approach used in the 2017 H-GAC Study. Table 4-3 summarizes the single-family and multi-family residential waste disposal for the City of Houston. Table 4-3 City of Houston Residential Disposal Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Residential Disposal Single-Family 769,218 771,115 782,512 797,616 810,267 817,347 Multi-Family 626,662 638,712 702,504 776,572 880,462 965,823 Total Residential Disposal 1,395,880 1,409,827 1,485,016 1,574,188 1,690,729 1,783,170 Commercial Disposal Forecast The commercial disposal forecast for the City of Houston is based on an average annual disposal rate of 1.51 tons per employee. This is then applied to the employment forecast. This metric was derived from the 2017 H-GAC Study and is consistent with other studies that evaluate disposal rates on a per-employee basis. The disposal rate was assumed to be constant for the entire 2019 through 2040 forecast. Table 4-4 summarizes the commercial disposal forecast for the City of Houston.

Table 4-4 City of Houston Commercial Disposal Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Commercial Disposal 2,842,172 2,873,950 3,076,281 3,302,678 3,482,341 3,576,018

Total Disposal Forecast Table 4-5 and Figure 4-1 summarize the total disposal forecast, which is comprised of waste disposed by both the residential and commercial sectors. Table 4-5 Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Residential Disposal Single-Family 769,218 771,115 782,512 797,616 810,267 817,347 Multi-Family 626,662 638,712 702,504 776,572 880,462 965,823 Commercial Disposal 2,842,172 2,873,950 3,076,281 3,302,678 3,482,341 3,576,018 Total Disposal 4,238,052 4,283,777 4,561,296 4,876,866 5,173,070 5,359,188

Figure 4-1 City of Houston Total Disposal Forecast

6,000,000 5,359,188 5,173,070 4,561,296 4,876,866 5,000,000 4,238,052 4,283,777

4,000,000

3,000,000

Tons

2,000,000

1,000,000

- 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single-Family Waste Disposal Multi-Family Waste Disposal Commercial Waste Disposal

Diversion Forecast

City-wide Diversion Quantities Table 4-6 State of Texas 2015 Diverted Material per 2017 TCEQ Study (Tons) Estimated diversion efforts within the City are based on the quantities of yard and wood waste, Total % of Total 1 recyclables, construction & demolition (C&D), Typical Recyclable Material 3,129,530 34.1% 2 and other recyclables diverted annually within Organics 2,747,128 30.0% 2 Construction & Demolition 3,136,727 34.2% the City of Houston. The survey-based “Study Material3 on the Economic Impacts of Recycling” Other Recyclables4 158,322 1.7% commissioned by Texas Commission on Total 9,171,707 100% Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and released in 1. Includes glass, metals, paper, and plastics. 2017 (2017 TCEQ Study) was used to quantify 2. Includes biosolids, food and beverage materials, yard trimmings, brush, the amount of these materials diverted. and leaves. According to the 2017 TCEQ Study, 3. Includes concrete aggregate and others. approximately 9.17 million tons of material were 4. Includes electronic materials, household hazardous waste, textiles, tires, diverted from landfills statewide in 2015. These and other uncategorized materials. 9.17 million tons are based on data collected through the 2017 TCEQ survey, as well as supplemental data received from other sources. The data do not include the extrapolation of recyclables and is, therefore, a conservative Table 4-7 estimate. Table 4-6 summarizes the diverted Estimated 2015 Diverted Material in Houston (Tons) material per the results of the 2017 TCEQ Study. % of Total Total Curbside and Drop-Off Recyclables Typical Recyclables1 255,683 34.1% Organics2 224,440 30.0% Approximately 8.17% of all Texas residents Construction & Demolition Material3 256,271 34.2% reside within the City of Houston. Therefore, it is Other Recyclables4 12,935 1.7% assumed that 8.17% of all reported diverted Total 749,328 100% material (approximately 749,328 tons of the 1. Includes glass, metals, paper, and plastics. 9,171,707 total tons) was generated within the 2. Includes biosolids, food and beverage materials, yard 3 City in 2015. Table 4-7 presents the quantities trimmings, brush, and leaves. of materials recovered in Houston based on the 3. Includes concrete aggregate. 2017 TCEQ study. However, a review of 4. Includes electronic materials, household hazardous waste, Houston’s specific data shows significantly more textiles, tires, and other uncategorized materials. C&D and organics being recovered. The SWMD currently maintains metrics for their single-stream curbside recycling operation. Table 4-8 presents historic metrics for the residential recycling, yard waste, and tree waste.

2 The amount of material estimated to be diverted includes both material collected by the City of Houston Solid Waste Management Department, as well as the private sector. 3 Per the U.S. Census (reported as of July 2017): 2,312,717 Houston population / 28,304,596 Texas population = 8.17% 40

In addition to single-family curbside recycling, the Table 4-8 SWMD operates six neighborhood Single Family (SF) Per-Capita Diversion (Tons/Person)) depositories/recycling centers and four 2016 2017 2018 neighborhood recycling drop-off locations. SF Diversion Tonnage collected at these ten sites are SF Recycling 0.0572 0.0470 0.0333 forecasted in Table 4-9. Private companies in the SF Yard & Wood Waste 0.0500 0.0498 0.0278 City also offer commercial recycling services, SF Diversion Total 0.1072 0.0968 0.0611 although the specific tonnages associated with Total Diversion (Tons/Year) commercial recycling collection are not publicly SF Yard Waste 54,479 54,569 30,612 available. Table 4-10 and Figure 4-2 are based on (tons/year) the extrapolated metrics derived from the 2017 SF Recycling (tons/year) 62,287 51,497 36,595 TCEQ Study and reflect the impact of the SF Diversion Total 116,766 106,006 67,207 continued population growth within the City of Houston.

Table 4-9 City of Houston Typical Recyclable Material Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

SF Curbside Recycling1 68,4361 68,605 69,619 70,963 72,088 72,718 Drop-Off Recycling2 3,567 3,603 3,795 4,023 4,321 4,557 Glass, Metals, Paper & Plastics Diversion from Other Sources3 194,052 196,506 209,631 225,055 245,845 262,598 Total 266,055 268,714 283,045 300,041 322,254 339,873 1. Typical recyclables collected via curbside recycling for single-family units. 2. Tonnage sourced from the City of Houston depositories/recycling centers and drop-off locations. 3. Tons of recyclables from other sources is extrapolated per the 2017 TCEQ Study. 4. 0.0521 * 1,313,556 (single-family population per Table 2-1) = 68,436 tons of single-family (SF) curbside recyclables. 5. This includes projected recycling tonnage for all single-family homes, both those collected by the City, and the 16% of single-family households collected by contracted service providers.

Figure 4-2 City of Houston Typical Recyclable Material Forecast

400,000

339,873 350,000 322,254 300,041 300,000 283,045 266,055 268,714

250,000

200,000 Tons

150,000

100,000

50,000

- 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

SF Curbside Recycling Drop-Off Recycling Other Sources Extrapolated Total from 2017 TCEQ Study

Organics Table 4-10 summarizes the single-family yard and wood waste forecast for the SWMD curbside program, using the 0.0499 per capita rate identified in Table 4-2, and applying that rate to the estimated single-family population. Table 4-10 City of Houston Single-Family (SF) Wood & Yard Waste (Tons)2 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

SF Wood & Yard Waste 65,5461 65,708 66,679 67,966 69,044 69,648

1. 0.0499 * 1,313,556 = 65,546 tons of single-family (SF) wood and yard waste. 2. This includes projected wood and yard waste tonnage for all single-family homes, both those collected by the City, and the 16% of single-family households collected by contracted service providers.

Table 4-11 summarizes the organics diversion forecast for the City of Houston and incorporates the impact of the continued population growth within the City.

Table 4-11 City of Houston Organics Diversion Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 SF Wood & Yard Waste1 65,546 65,708 66,679 67,966 69,044 69,648 Organics Diverted from Other Sources2 170,494 172,691 184,434 198,226 216,855 231,883 Total 236,0413 238,399 251,113 266,192 285,899 301,531 1. Yard waste and wood waste collected from single-family homes. 2. Forecast for organics tracks with population growth. See Section 2.1. 3. Values differ slightly from Table 4-5 because Table 4-7 was adjusted for growth. Table 4-5 was based on tonnage reported for 2018.

Figure 4-3 illustrates the organics diversion forecast for the City of Houston. Figure 4-3 City of Houston Organic Diversion Forecast

350,000 301,531 285,899 300,000 266,192 298,343 251,113 282,877 236,041 238,399 263,379 250,000 248,459 235,879 233,546 200,000 216,855 231,883 198,226 Tons 150,000 170,494 172,691 184,434

100,000

50,000 65,546 65,708 66,679 67,966 69,044 69,648 - 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

SF Wood & Yard Waste Organics from Other Sources Total Organics Estimate Extrapolated from 2017 TCEQ STUDY

Construction & Demolition Materials There are several demolition and C&D recycling companies that operate within the City of Houston. Based on conversations with some of these companies, it is estimated that approximately 1.5 million tons of C&D material is diverted on an annual basis from within the City of Houston. C&D material includes concrete (i.e. aggregate), reclaimed asphalt, steel, composition asphalt shingles, and tires.4 Table 4-12 and Figure 4-4 summarize the C&D diversion forecast, which is projected to increase with population growth.

Table 4-12 City of Houston Construction & Demolition Materials Diversion (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

C&D Materials 1,519,560 1,534,743 1,616,593 1,713,667 1,840,533 1,941,164

Figure 4-4 City of Houston C&D Diversion Forecast 2,000,000 1,840,533 1,941,164 1,713,667 1,800,000 1,616,593 1,519,560 1,534,743 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000

1,000,000 Tons 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 - 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Concrete Reclaimed Asphalt Steel Composition Asphalt Shingles Tires Extrapolated C&D Tonnage from 2017 TCEQ STUDY

Other Recyclables It is interesting to note that the amount of C&D being diverted within the City of Houston (1,519,560 tons) is significantly greater than the amount estimated per the 2017 TCEQ Study 256,271 tons. This is due to the very active C&D diversion program within the City of Houston and this Region by several C&D contractors within the Houston area, most notably Cherry Companies. The final component of the waste diversion forecast includes other recyclables which combine for a small percentage (1.7%) of all diverted materials. These materials include electronic waste, household hazardous materials, textiles, tires, and other uncategorized materials.

4 The following additional material could be diverted if markets for them are established: sheet rock, carpet, treated wood, gypsum, and glass. 44

Table 4-13 summarizes the forecast for these types of materials, which is based on the 8.17% allocation factor (Houston residents as a percentage of the State of Texas population). These generation rates are assumed to grow at the same annual growth rates as population.

Table 4-13 City of Houston Other Recyclables (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Other Recyclables 13,460 13,594 14,319 15,179 16,303 17,194

Total Diversion Forecast Table 4-14 and Figure 4-5 summarize the total diversion forecast, which includes the following materials: typical recyclables, organics, C&D waste, and other recyclables.

Table 4-14 City of Houston Total Diversion Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Typical Recyclables 266,055 268,714 283,045 300,041 322,254 339,873 Organics 236,041 238,399 251,113 266,192 285,899 301,531 Construction & Demolition Waste 1,519,560 1,534,743 1,616,593 1,713,667 1,840,533 1,941,164 Other Recyclables 13,460 13,594 14,319 15,179 16,303 17,194 Total Diversion Tonnage 2,035,116 2,055,450 2,165,070 2,295,079 2,464,989 2,599,762

Figure 4-5 City of Houston Total Diversion Forecast

3,000,000 2,599,762 2,464,989 2,500,000 2,295,079 2,165,070 2,035,116 2,055,450 2,000,000

1,500,000 Tons

1,000,000

500,000

- 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Typical Recyclables Organics Construction & Demolition Materials Other Recylables

Forecast Summary The total generation forecast is comprised of both the disposal and diversion forecasts. Table 4-15 and Figure 4-6 summarize the generation forecast. Based on the data as shown in Table 4-15, the City has an estimated diversion rate of approximately 32.4%. However, it should be noted that 75% of the diversion rate is due to C&D. Excluding C&D, the diversion rate is approximately 10.9% (515,556 tons/4,238,054 + 515,556 = 10.9%). Based on this analysis, while a significant portion of the waste stream generated within the City of Houston is diverted, there are additional opportunities to increase the diversion of materials from landfills within the City of Houston in a cost-effective manner.

Table 4-15 City of Houston Total Generation Forecast (Tons) 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Disposal 4,238,052 4,283,777 4,561,296 4,876,866 5,173,070 5,359,188 Total Diversion 2,035,116 2,055,450 2,165,070 2,295,079 2,464,989 2,599,762

Total Generation 6,273,168 6,339,227 6,726,366 7,171,945 7,638,059 7,958,950

Figure 4-6 City of Houston Total Generation Forecast by Type of Material

9,000,000 7,958,950 7,638,059 8,000,000 7,171,945 6,726,366 7,000,000 6,273,168 6,339,227 6,000,000 5,000,000

Tons 4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000 1,000,000 - 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

MSW Typical Recyclables Organics Construction & Demolition Materials Other Recylables

5.0 Facilities Assessment Key Findings

1. Management of municipal solid waste requires a complex infrastructure, The management of MSW in including facilities to collect, process, recover, transfer, and dispose of Houston requires a regional, wastes. complex, integrated waste 2. The City relies on facilities throughout the region to meet its needs. Based management system to meet the on TCEQ reports, all of the MSW landfills in the H-GAC region report they accept waste generated in Harris County. Waste is also imported from other MSW needs of Houston’s counties to the McCarty Road Landfill located in Houston. residents and businesses. 3. The private sector has a critical role in meeting Houston’s municipal solid waste management needs. This includes hundreds of recycling businesses Houstonians might be surprised at as well as material recovery facilities, mulch and composting operations, the amount of recycling taking transfer stations and landfills. This fact has both benefits and risks to the City that were evaluated in the planning process. place in the H-GAC region. Over 4. Currently, the City relies primarily on the McCarty Road, Blue Ridge or 800,000 tons of organics are Atascocita Landfills for disposal of waste collected by City crews, which is recovered; over 2.5 million tons primarily residential waste. These landfills have a combined capacity of of C&D are processed and 140.2 million tons of waste, or approximately 37 years at current rates of recycled; and over 300,000 tons disposal. The McCarty Road Landfill has 13 to 16 years of remaining of materials such as paper, capacity and the Atascocita Landfill has 24 years of remaining capacity metals and plastics are recovered (Source: TCEQ MSW Landfill Annual Reports). It generally takes between at Houston material recovery 10 to 15 years to secure new capacity in Texas under today’s political and facilities and that does not include regulatory climate. There is a total of 13 operating municipal solid waste private sector recycling such as landfills in the H-GAC region with a combined remaining capacity of between scrap businesses. Still, over 9.7 30 to 40 years assuming current per-capita disposal rates. million tons of waste are landfilled 5. A total of 2.8 million tons of C&D waste is disposed at the 15 operating Type in the region. IV C&D landfills in the region. Regionally, these facilities have an estimated 20 to 30 years of remaining capacity. 6. In 2010, 7.2 million tons of waste were landfilled in the H-GAC region; in 2018, 9.9 million tons were landfilled (Source: TCEQ Annual Municipal Solid Waste Report & Landfill Annual Reports to TCEQ). This increase is largely attributed to increases in population and economic activity. Also, tonnages associated with Hurricane Harvey are reflected in the fiscal year 2018 figures, explaining the increase in C&D disposal quantities from 1.8 million tons to 2.8 million tons. Regionally, the per-capita disposal rate for MSW increased from a rate of 5.22 pounds per capita per day (pcd) in 2010 to 5.52 pcd in 2018. In 2040, the estimated regional population is projected to be 9.0 million. Assuming no change in the disposal rate per capita, this represents approximately 229 million tons requiring disposal from 2018 to 2038. Current Type I and Type IV landfill capacity is 328.5 million tons. 7. The City-owned facilities, including recycling drop-off centers, depositories and environmental service centers help facilitate recycling, and proper management of household hazardous waste. 8. There are approximately 500,000 tons of annual capacity at material recovery facilities (MRFs) in the Region. The majority of this capacity is located within the City of Houston. These facilities process comingled recyclable materials for market. Prior to March 2019, the City relied on three MRFs to process comingled recyclables. Since March 2019, the residential co-mingled recyclable materials collected by the City are being taken to the newly constructed FCC MRF located in northeast Houston. The FCC facility has a capacity of 145,000 tons per year. 9. The growth of the mulch and composting industries in the last few years has had an impact on the quantities of materials that would otherwise require disposal. In 2017, over 600,000 tons of organic material were processed regionally and marketed instead of being landfilled. 10. In addition to the City’s three transfer stations, there are 10 privately operated transfer stations serving Houston and an additional 8 transfer stations located outside Houston. Twenty-six percent of the waste collected in the region is 47

taken to a transfer station for transfer to one of the area’s regional landfills. An additional transfer station is planned for northeast Houston at the City’s Northeast Service Center.

Figure 5-1 Disposal Quantities in H-GAC Region (million tons/year)

12.00

10.00

2.79 1.84 8.00 1.81 1.93 1.29 6.00

4.00 6.84 6.77 7.25 7.15 5.93 2.00

- 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 MSW C&D

A Complex Regional System According to TCEQ records, there are 111 TCEQ-authorized municipal solid waste (MSW) management facilities located in Houston (excluding liquid waste facilities). In the H-GAC Region (Region), there are 230 facilities (refer to Table 5-1). Of the 111 facilities in Houston, 41 are TCEQ-authorized recycling and resource recovery (RR) facilities. These 41 facilities include mixed waste processing facilities and material recovery facilities, electronic recycling, construction & demolition recycling, and shingle recycling. In addition to these 41 authorized facilities, there are recycling facilities that do not require TCEQ authorization such as the City’s Westpark Consumer Recycling Center and a number of private recycling businesses. An H-GAC database identifies over 32 recycling drop-off centers in Harris County, 21 of which are located in Houston. A review of local data also identified between 150 and 200 businesses that provide some form of recycling services. The Westpark Consumer Recycling Center is one of only several options that There are approximately 18 Houston facilities that either mulch wood or Houstonians have to recycle materials. produce compost, and 52 regionally. Composting and wood grinding facilities process yard waste, brush and tree waste, biosolids (digested wastewater treatment plant sludge) and a small amount of food residuals. The use of transfer stations allows short-haul collection vehicles to transfer waste to larger, more efficient trucks. Given Houston’s traffic conditions, these facilities are especially important to reduce the cost of hauling waste and reducing

vehicle emissions. The City owns three transfer stations and is planning a new facility in northeast Houston. There are 13 operating MSW transfer stations in the City and 21 operating in the Region. An additional eleven transfer stations are permitted regionally but are either inactive or not constructed. In 2017, a total of 2.5 million tons were sent to transfer stations in the Region before being sent to a landfill. Materials that are not recovered are disposed at one of the 27 operating landfills located in the Region. Twelve of these are municipal solid waste landfills (Type I) and 15 are construction and demolition waste landfills (Type IV). Regionally, over 9.9 million tons of waste were disposed in 2018. TCEQ-authorized facilities also manage specific waste materials including household hazardous wastes (“HHW”), medical wastes, grease and grit trap wastes and tires. With the exception of nine permitted landfill gas-to-energy operations in the Region, there are no known energy from waste facilities operating in the Region.

Table 5-1 TCEQ-Authorized Regional Waste Management Facilities Authorized in H-GAC Operating in Type of # Authorized # Operating in Authorized H-GAC Facility in Houston Houston Region Region

Recycling1 41 40 76 74

Composting 19 18 54 52

Medical Waste Transfer & Processing 3 3 5 5 Grease & Grit Trap Waste Transfer & 8 5 8 5 Processing

Transfer Stations2 19 13 31 21

MSW Landfills – Type I3 2 2 14 12

Construction & Demolition Landfills – Type IV 12 10 17 15

Landfill Gas Recovery 2 2 9 7

Citizen Convenience Centers & Low Volume TS 0 0 11 11

1. Includes C&D recycling, electronics recycling, shingle recycling, mixed waste processing and material recovery facilities. A breakdown of these facilities is presented later in this report. Total operating facilities is uncertain as there are no reporting requirements for these facilities. 2. FCC’s Material Recovery Facility and Republic’s Resource Renewal Complex are authorized as transfer stations but only manage recyclable materials from single stream residential recyclables collections and commercial sector recyclables. Thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19) permitted Houston transfer stations transferred MSW in 2018. 3. One is permitted but not constructed (Darrell Dickey Landfill). Does not include one MSW landfill that accepts primarily commercial/industrial waste that is an industrial waste landfill (Conroe Industrial Non-hazardous Landfill).

MSW Landfills MSW Landfill Requirements The majority of Houston’s waste is disposed in one of the 12 operating municipal solid waste landfills (Type I) or 15 operating construction and demolition (C&D) landfills (Type IV) in the H-GAC region. The Type I or IV designation refers to the regulatory requirements as governed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). A landfill is an

engineered facility for the disposal of waste. MSW landfills are designed to mitigate potential environmental consequences of disposal, including impacts to water quality, air and land resources. This is accomplished through the use of liner and leachate collection systems, operating practices and ultimately closure and post-closure care of the site. The basic components of a landfill are presented below. It should be noted that the requirements for Type I and Type IV landfills are different because of the differences in the types of waste accepted at each.

Composite liner requirements— typically includes a flexible Figure 5-2 Landfill Design Concept membrane (i.e., geo-membrane) overlaying two feet of compacted Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clay soil lining the bottom and sides of the landfill. They are used to protect groundwater and the underlying soil from leachate releases. 1. Leachate collection and removal systems - sit on top of the composite liner and remove leachate from the landfill for treatment and disposal. 2. Operating practices - include compacting and covering waste frequently with several inches of soil. These practices help reduce leachate generation and odors, control litter, insects, and rodents, and protect public health. Figure 5-2 shows a cross-section of a municipal solid waste landfill. 3. Groundwater monitoring requirements - requires testing groundwater wells to determine whether leachate has escaped It takes approximately 10 to 15 years to site, permit and from the landfill. construct a new landfill. 4. Landfill gas management – as waste decomposes, it produces methane, a gas similar to natural gas. This gas must be managed, which often includes collection and processing for potential energy recovery. 5. Closure and post-closure care requirements - include covering landfills and providing long-term care of closed landfills. 6. Financial assurance - provides funding for environmental protection during and after landfill closure (i.e., closure and post-closure care).

Regional MSW Landfill Capacity The City of Houston does not own or operate either a Type I or a Type IV landfill. The City relies primarily on three landfills for the disposal of residential waste collected by SWMD crews. These facilities include McCarty Road, Atascocita and Blue Ridge. With the exception of the Chambers County Landfill, all of the landfills in the region are owned and operated by private entities. The location of regional landfills is presented in Appendix B. Table 5-2 presents landfill remaining capacity. The three landfills that the City relies on for residential waste disposal have a combined capacity of approximately 38 years. The McCarty Road Landfill has 13 years remaining capacity at current rates of disposal; the Atascocita Landfill has remaining capacity of 24 years at current rates of disposal; the Blue Ridge Landfill has a reported 88 years of capacity at current rates of disposal. On a regional basis, three other landfills (Altair Disposal Services Landfill, Galveston County Landfill and Chambers County Landfill) have 20 years or less remaining capacity. It should be noted that as one landfill reaches its capacity, the waste from that landfill will be directed to another landfill, thereby increasing its annual disposal quantities, and reducing its remaining site life.

Table 5-2 Type I Landfills – Ownership & Capacity

Remaining Remaining Remaining Capacity Capacity Capacity Landfill Owner Tons Cubic Yards Years (2017) McCarty Road Republic 23,748,385 21,472,319 13 Atascocita Waste Management of Texas 29,228,482 38,458,529 21 Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Landfill TX, LP 87,275,249 142,373,978 86 Houston Primary Landfills 140,252,116 202,304,826 37

Houston Secondary Landfills 127,448,641 157,000,630 40

Total* 267,700,757 359,305,456 31 Source: TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste – A Year in Review 2017. Assumes current rates of disposal. *Does not include Conroe Industrial Non-hazardous Waste Landfill with a capacity of 5.7 million tons and accepted 49,300 tons in 2017 Table 5-3 presents data on historic waste disposal quantities in the H-GAC region. A key assumption used by TCEQ in determining landfill life is that disposal rates remain constant over the life of the facility. However, the continued growth in population and economic activity has resulted in increased annual disposal quantities in the Region. In 2010, the H- GAC region disposed of 5.93 million tons of waste in Type I landfills. By 2017, this quantity increased to 6.97 million tons, a 17.5% increase. Over the same period, the population of the H-GAC region increased from 6.1 million in 2010 to 6.9 million in 2017, a 13% increase (Sources: Texas Demographic Center & Texas Water Development Board). Therefore, on a regional basis, waste disposal per capita increased from 5.22 pounds pcd in 2010 to 5.5 pcd in 2017. The impacts of anticipated growth in the region is discussed later in this report. Table 5-3 also shows the distribution of market share for these landfills. The three landfills that the City relies on for its disposal accounted for 55% of the waste disposed in the Region. The McCarty Road Landfill owned by Republic Services decreased from 30% of the region’s market share in 2010 to 21% in 2017. The Blue Ridge Landfill, also owned by Republic Services, increased from 9% in 2010 to 16% in 2017. And other than the increase in Fort Bend Regional Landfill’s market share going from 10% to 15%, there have not been major shifts in waste flow over the period 2010 to 2017. Table 5-3 Type I Landfills – Annual Throughput (Tons) 2010% 2018% Market Market Historical Throughput 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 Share Share McCarty Road 1,793,086 1,426,088 1,116,310 1,364,814 1,619,174 30% 23% Atascocita 939,804 1,242,928 1,253,621 1,209,440 1,248,556 16% 17% Blue Ridge 516,629 1,060,899 1,176,325 1,244,016 1,115,761 9% 16% Subtotal 3,249,519 3,729,915 3,546,256 3,818,270 3,983,491 55% 56%

Subtotal 2,678,701 3,106,195 3,228,211 3,436,442 3,171,461 45% 44%

Total 5,928,220 6,836,110 6,774,467 7,254,712 7,154,952 100% 100%

Impacts of Growth on MSW Capacity Table 5-2 shows that the anticipated remaining capacity of the facilities in the region is approximately 37 years. This assumes that annual waste quantities do not increase above the 2017 rate. However, as demonstrated between 2010 to 2017, waste quantities have continued to increase, even at a rate higher than the increases in population. For the planning period, 2018 - 2038, population in the H-GAC region is anticipated to increase from 6.9 million to over 8.8 million. Assuming no increase in waste disposal rates per capita, municipal solid waste quantities will increase from 6.9 million tons per year to 10.9 million tons per year. The amount of waste disposed of cumulatively over the planning period is anticipated to be 190 million tons between 2019 – 2038. Current regional Type I disposal capacity is 267 million tons. By 2038, 71% of the current disposal capacity will be filled. At the end of the planning period (2040), there is projected to be an estimated 92 million tons of remaining capacity if there are no expansions or new sites permitted (Figure 5-3). This also does not take into consideration the potential that C&D landfills will have reached capacity and the Type IV waste that would normally go to these landfills may be directed to Type I landfills. It also does not take into consideration other factors including changes in regional economic activity, storm events and the impacts of future source reduction and recycling programs. If there are no major changes in capacity, and waste disposal quantities continue to increase at projected rates, one landfill will have reached capacity and six landfills, including McCarty Road, will have ten years or less of remaining capacity. Four key factors are uncertain at this time that will affect remaining capacity at any specific landfill. 1. Whether any of the landfills are able to expand their current facility; 2. When a landfill in the region reaches capacity, where the flow of that waste will go and how will it impact a specific landfill’s remaining capacity; 3. What factors could impact the waste disposal rate in a way that would reduce annual disposal quantities; and 4. The region’s C&D landfills have less capacity than the Type I landfills. It is possible that as C&D options are reduced, some of the waste that currently goes to MSW landfills will ultimately go to Type I Landfills. Figure 5-3 H-GAC Region - Remaining Capacity

TYPE I - MSW CAPACITY 2017-2040 (TONS) 300,000,000 Type I - MSW 250,000,000

200,000,000

150,000,000

100,000,000

50,000,000

- 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037

Construction & Demolition Landfills The H-GAC region has a total of 15 operating Type IV landfills. These landfills are designed to only Figure 5-4 accept C&D debris and brush. Because they do Disposal Facilities Used in H-GAC not accept putrescible waste, the liner and final Region cover requirements for Type IV landfills are less stringent than the requirements for Type I landfills. Type IV 28% The H-GAC region is unique to Texas in its number Type I of Type IV facilities. Approximately 21% of the total waste stream goes to these facilities compared to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) region (Dallas/Fort Worth) where only 7% of the waste stream goes to 72% Type IV facilities. In the NCTCOG region, there are only 3 permitted Type IV facilities. Table 5-4 presents a summary of C&D landfill capacity (60.8 million tons) and 2017 annual disposal quantities (1.85 million tons). (Source: TCEQ Annual MSW Report) The regional capacity of Type IV landfills is 40 million tons and at current rates of disposal at 1.8 million tons per year, there are 32 years remaining capacity. Of the 40 million tons of regional capacity, 28 million tons are located within Houston City boundaries, or 70%. Houston Type IV landfills disposed 1.4 million tons in 2017, or 77% of the total amount disposed in regional Type IV landfills. Table 5-4 C&D Landfill Capacity C&D Tons of Cubic Yards 2017 Years Landfills Capacity of Capacity Tons Remaining Capacity Total 60,824,019 104,310,227 1,852,255 22

Table 5-5 presents Type IV landfill disposal quantities for 2010, 2015, 2016 and 2017. As with the case for Type I MSW landfills, the amounts of waste disposed in Type IV landfills has continued to increase from 2010 to present. The 2010 C&D per capita disposal rate was 1.15 per capita per day (pcd); this rate increased to 1.46 pcd in 2018, a 27% increase in pcd disposal. Based on landfill reports to TCEQ, C&D disposal quantities for 2018 increased by approximately 700,000 tons in one year. This is largely due to the impacts of Hurricane Harvey, which occurred in late 2017, but for reporting purposes is shown in 2018. (TCEQ reporting periods are August through September.) Table 5-5 Historic Type IV Disposal Rates C&D Landfills 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 1,285,919 1,808,309 1,931,682 1,852,285 2,792,082

Impacts of Growth on C&D Capacity Figure 5-5 Figure 5-5 illustrates remaining Type IV Type IV Remaining Capacity (tons) capacity to the year 2040. Regional Type IV landfill capacity is anticipated to reach PROJECTED TYPE IV LANDFILL capacity by approximately 2034. Once CAPACITY (TONS) these sites reach capacity, waste will 70,000,000 have to be disposed at remaining Type I C&D landfills if no additional Type IV capacity 60,000,000 is permitted. It should be noted that the majority of waste generated from 50,000,000 Hurricane Harvey went to Type IV landfills. Future storm events will 40,000,000 significantly impact future Type IV disposal capacity. 30,000,000

By 2020, 5 of the 15 Type IV landfills will 20,000,000 have exceeded capacity. In 2040, only 4 of the 15 will have remaining capacity, 10,000,000 unless there is additional capacity permitted prior to these years. - 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037

Recycling Facilities and Environmental Service Centers Recycling is the process of collecting and Figure 5-6 processing materials that would otherwise be Texas Recycles 9.2 Million Tons In 2015 thrown away as trash and turning them into new products (Source: EPA). Houston’s recycling infrastructure includes material recovery 2% facilities, recycling centers, businesses that pay Total Typical for recycled materials and processors of 34% Organic Material materials into new products. According to a 34% TCEQ sponsored report (Study on the Economic Impact of Recycling- July 2017, Construction Materials TCEQ), 9.2 million tons of material were recycled in the state of Texas – compared to 31 Other Materials million tons of waste landfilled state-wide in 2015. This is equivalent to a 23% recycling rate state-wide. 30%

Material Recovery Facilities The EPA defines a Material Recovery Facility (“MRF”) as “a central operation where comingled and/or source separated recyclables are processed mechanically or manually. Here a separation and/or beneficiation of recyclables prepares them to meet market specifications for sale.” The City’s curbside recycling program collects comingled or mixed recyclable materials that are put at the curb in a single container in a manner known as single-stream collection. These comingled materials are then transported to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Table 5-6 presents a summary of material recovery facilities located in the Region. These facilities are designed to process recyclables from both the residential and commercial sectors. Companies that collect recyclable materials often deliver them to these facilities. Representatives of the industry have indicated that the flow of materials from the commercial sector have increased in recent years as MRF designs incorporate both manual and mechanical separation corporations take actions to reduce their Source: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Waste-Management- environmental impacts. continues-to-struggle-with-6085567.php. Total capacity of these regional MRFs is over 494,000 tons per year, or 1,590 tons per day assuming an 8-hour operating shift. Additional hours of operation can increase daily and annual throughput of these facilities. There was a reported 307,000 tons of material processed in 2017, or 62% of capacity.

Table 5-6 MRF Capacity in H-GAC Region 2017 Capacity MRF Address Owner Tons Recovered Throughput 4939 Gasmer Drive Gasmer MRF Houston WM 78,000 120,000 tpy Houston Clay Road 9590 Clay Road MRF Houston WM 105,000 204,000 tpy Westside (Brittmore) 1200 Brittmore Road MRF Houston WM 87,000 120,000 tpy 7172 E Mt Houston Road Global Waste Services Houston WCA N/A N/A 5757 B Oates Road Houston Sort Center Houston Republic 37,580 50,000 tpy Independent Texas 6810 Irvington Boulevard Independent Texas Recyclers Houston Recyclers N/A N/A 9170 Ley Road Opened March FCC Houston FCC 2019 145,000 tpy

Organics Processing Facilities Organic wastes or residuals are often disposed in landfills. However, organics processing facilities are proliferating in the H-GAC region. In the region, many organic wastes and residuals are recycled through the manufacture of mulch and compost rather than being disposed. Approximately 30% of wastes recycled in Texas in 2015 and voluntarily self-reported to TCEQ for the Study on the Economic Impact of Recycling was organic materials. That percentage is likely to be higher in the Houston area because of the accessibility and capacity of organics processing facilities. There is also a greater percentage of organic materials available in the Houston market due to its climate and types of vegetation found in the Houston area versus some other parts of Texas. There are no anaerobic digestion or other energy-from-waste facilities in the H-GAC region except from landfill gas. There are 52 known mulch and compost manufacturers in the H-GAC Region which are available to process organics generated within the City of Houston and divert materials from landfills available to receive the City’s MSW for disposal. Table 5-7 presents a summary of facilities in the H-GAC region based on TCEQ records and interviews with various organics processors in the region. Table 5-7 presents estimates of the quantities of organics managed at major facilities in the region. Over 235,000 tons were processed at facilities located in Houston and an additional 314,000 tons were processed at facilities located outside the City limits, for a total regional quantity of 549,000 tons. It should be noted that some material produced in Houston is being processed by facilities located outside the City’s boundaries.

Table 5-7 Estimated Throughput and Capacity of Major Facilities Throughput (Tons/yr) Capacity (Tons/yr) In Houston >235,000 481,000 Outside Houston >613,500 >815,000

Transfer Stations Transfer stations are designed to improve collection efficiency by transferring waste from collection vehicles to more efficient long- haul vehicles. This allows the collection vehicles to spend more time collecting waste, versus hauling long distances to the landfill. There is a total of 21 operating transfer stations in the H-GAC region, three of which are owned by the City of Houston. Regionally, approximately 26% of the waste collected from the residential and commercial sectors goes to a transfer station before it is sent to a landfill. Transfer stations can be designed to recover materials including brush and C&D wastes. In 2017, four of the region’s transfer stations reported recovering for diversion 37,370 tons of material sent to the transfer station. Most of the recovered material was either C&D material or brush. Two of the City’s transfer stations are located next to either a depository or a recycling center. The City’s three transfer stations are these: 1. Northwest Transfer Station (14424 Sommermeyer Street) 2. Southeast Transfer Station (9225 Lawndale Street) 3. Southwest Transfer Station (5904 Westpark Drive)

The City’s transfer stations were permitted in 1999 and are operated under contract by Republic Services (last negotiated in 2009). The Southeast and Southwest Transfer Stations are direct-dump operations where waste is deposited on the tipping floor and front-end loaders push the waste into hoppers that direct the waste into transfer trailers. The Northwest Transfer Station is designed to have a grapple crane load the waste into the transfer vehicles. None of the City’s transfer stations is currently designed to segregate waste for recovery. Table 5-8 presents the waste throughput for the City’s transfer stations in 2017. The City’s transfer stations had a combined throughput of 695,096 tons (Source: City of Houston). Of the 695,096 tons, City trucks delivered 394,779 tons, or 57% of the waste going to these facilities. The City’s contract with Republic Services allows it to use the facility for its collection vehicles and other private sector haulers. Approximately 43% of the waste taken to the City’s three transfer stations is from private haulers. Table 5-8 2017 – City Transfer Stations City of Republic All Other Total Houston Services Privates Tonnage Northwest 86,988 117,418 18,212 222,619 Southeast 194,057 34,927 11,053 240,039 Southwest 113,734 80,306 38,397 232,438

Total 394,779 232,653 67,663 695,096

% of Total 57% 33% 10% 100% In 2018, the City issued a request for proposals for the design of a new transfer station to be located in northeast Houston. The planned facility location is 5711 Neches Street, Houston, Texas. Table 5-9 provides a summary of transfer stations in the H-GAC region. There are 31 permitted transfer stations in the H-GAC region; however, only 20 are accepting waste. A total of 2.3 million tons of waste was directed to these transfer stations in 2017, which is equal to 26% of the total amount of waste (MSW + C/D) that was disposed in the Region for that year. On average, 7,300 tons per day are sent to regional transfer stations. The City currently relies primarily on their own facilities, but at times have used private transfer stations including the Rufino Transfer Station. Approximately two-thirds of the City’s MSW is sent to a transfer station before going to the landfill. Table 5-9 H-GAC Transfer Stations 2011 2015 2016 2017 Permitted 2017 Capacity Name (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPD) (TPD) Houston SW Transfer Station 311,435 292,856 271,317 244,213 2,000 783 Houston NW Transfer Station 162,482 226,364 220,391 217,157 2,000 696 Houston SE Transfer Station 194,793 219,022 229,169 241,632 2,000 774 HSWMD Transfer Station Total 668,710 738,242 720,877 703,002 6,000 2,253

Houston Private Sector TS 746,997 1,612,791 1,577,825 1,582,303 19,625 5,071 HSWMD TS Total + Private Sector TS 1,415,707 2,351,033 2,298,702 2,285,305 25,625 7,325

Outside Houston TS Total 95,214 119,803 126,381 224,323 NA 711

Total Transfer Station 1,510,921 2,470,836 2,425,083 2,509,628 NA 8,036

Note: Totals for Houston transfer stations may vary from Table 5-9 due to differences in reporting periods. Other Waste Management Facilities Other facilities assessed as part of the planning process that are presented in the Facilities Report include: 1. Grease and grit trap waste facilities 2. Tire Facilities 3. Medical Waste Facilities 4. Used Oil 5. Battery Recycling 6. Ash Management Sites

6.0 Strategic Analysis

Based on the City’s needs, resources and current services, the Project As part of the Planning Process, the Team identified a number of strategies in the form of either policies or Project Team prepared in-depth Options programs that could be implemented to achieve the City’s goals and Analysis Reports. These Reports objectives for the solid waste management system (System). This evaluate each of the options presented section defines these policies and programs as well as the Mayor’s to, or suggested by, the MATF. Advisory Task Force’s (MATF) priorities. The Strategic Analysis Report evaluates these options using the following criteria.

▪ Impact on the waste stream and other environmental impacts ▪ Technical feasibility ▪ Regulatory and legal issues ▪ Financial impacts Draft Goals & ▪ Complexity of implementation and administrative requirements Objectives ▪ Social issues and environmental justice The MATF priorities for strategies related to waste minimization, reuse, Waste Generation and Facilities Reports recycling and organics management are presented in this section, as well as the MATF’s input on collection services and long-term disposal capacity risks. The Project Team also identified strategies options that are consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan and Resiliency Plan. Gap Analysis Process The first step in the planning process was the establishment of Draft Goals Strategic Analysis and Objectives for the Plan. These Draft Goals and Objectives provided direction as to the types of services to be provided and policies and programs that should be adopted to achieve the City’s vision. The Project Team conducted workshops with both the MATF and SWMD senior Action Plan management to better understand key local issues and MATF priorities for the City’s future program. This section presents a summary of policy and program options and priorities for the following system elements:

▪ Financial Sustainability ▪ Transfer Stations ▪ Waste Minimization, Reuse & Recycling ▪ Energy & Resource Recovery ▪ Organics Management ▪ Assuring Disposal Capacity ▪ Collection ▪ Illegal Dumping Financial Sustainability A key to the City’s ability to implement an integrated solid waste program is adequate funding for staff, equipment and services such as material processing and waste disposal. The City’s program is funded through the General Fund, which is different than other cities that rely on enterprise funds that are financed via a solid waste user fee, and sometimes also a monthly environmental fee. Based on an initial review of the City’s budget in comparison to other cities, Houston’s solid waste program is underfunded between $20 million and $40 million per year. The following section presents a description of alternative options to fund the City’s solid waste program.

Enterprise Funds and User Fees Enterprise funds are created by municipal governments throughout the United States to provide a variety of governmental services in a manner that allows them to operate as business units that are financed through user fees versus tax revenues. The vast majority of solid waste utilities located in Texas are operated within an enterprise fund and charge a user fee, as do many of the solid waste utilities located within the United States. Similar to the City of Houston’s water and wastewater utility, the solid waste utility would be able to issue revenue bonds if it were in an enterprise fund, which would prevent the City from needing to utilize its general obligation debt capacity to fund solid waste related capital needs. This preserves the general obligation debt capacity to fund “traditional” General Fund activities (police, fire, etc.). The vast majority of solid waste utilities within Texas, and many throughout the United States, rely upon a dedicated solid waste user fee that is “cost-based” so as to ensure that all operating and capital costs required to operate a solid waste system, including the routine replacement of vehicles as they reach the end of their useful life, are fully funded and there is a sustainable revenue stream for the utility. Unfortunately, when a solid waste utility is reliant upon the General Fund for tax revenues to fund its operations, if unexpected issues arise that The MATF was unanimous in its were not budgeted (recessions, storm events, etc.), it is not uncommon agreement that the City needs an to have the solid waste utility’s capital budget severely restricted or even eliminated due to other pressures placed on the General Fund. Enterprise Fund paid for with Service Placement of a solid waste utility within an enterprise fund, with an Fees to pay for solid waste services. equitable, cost-based solid waste user fee funding mechanism, will ensure that utility a consistent and reliable revenue source, while ensuring service reliability. Municipal Solid Waste Funding Options Used by Other Cities in Texas and the U.S. Below is a brief summary of some of the different types of user fees that have been implemented by cities within Texas, as well as throughout the United States. In reviewing the ten largest cities in the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H- GAC), the Project Team found that all cities except Houston have a solid waste user fee. Seven of the cities charge a separate, dedicated monthly solid waste user fee. In Pasadena, the monthly user fee is included as a component of the monthly water bill. In The Woodlands, the fee is assessed along with property taxes once a year. The user fees charged by these cities are shown in Table 6-1. In Texas all ten of the largest cities in the state have a residential solid waste user fee - except for Houston. While these nine cities have different types of residential solid waste user fees (flat monthly fee, variable rate for different size cans, base charges, environmental fees, etc.), they all have the one common factor of a user fee – ensuring a reliable revenue stream so as to provide sufficient funding to pay for the operating and capital costs (trucks, transfer station capital repairs, etc.) associated with providing the citizens of their respective cities with the necessary solid waste and recycling services in a financially sustainable manner. The user fees charged by these cities are shown below in Table 6-2.

Table 6-1 Ten Largest Cities in the H-GAC Region

Monthly Solid Waste Rank City1 Population User Fee2

1 Houston 2,325,502 $ - 2 Pasadena4 151,718 24.50 3 The Woodlands5 108,070 14.15 4 Pearland 102,513 20.11 5 League City 95,735 18.26 6 Sugar Land 91,192 19.38 7 Missouri City 74,092 13.26 8 Baytown 73,720 27.71 9 Conroe 66,181 16.19 10 Galveston 49,471 20.48 1. The Woodlands is classified as unincorporated territory but was included for the purposes of this comparison. 2. Cities are ranked by population size according to U.S. Census Bureau 3. A 96-gallon cart is chosen if/when other options are available to keep service level and cost comparisons equal 4. The charge for solid waste service in Pasadena is included with the water bill. 5. Residents of The Woodlands pay $169.80 for solid waste collection once a year, collected with property taxes. $169.80 / 12 = $14.15.

Table 6-2 Ten Largest Cities in Texas Monthly Residential Solid Waste User Fees Monthly Solid Waste Monthly Rank City1 Enterprise Fund User Fee2 Environmental Fee 1 Houston $ - $ - No 2 San Antonio 26.76 3.24 Yes 3 Dallas 31.00 - Yes 4 Austin 43.50 8.95 Yes 5 Fort Worth 22.75 .50 Yes 6 El Paso 19.00 5.00 Yes 7 Arlington 16.01 - No 8 Corpus Christi 16.91 - No3 9 Plano 16.10 - Yes 10 Laredo 18.00 - Yes 1. Cities are ranked by population size 2. A 96-gallon cart is chosen if/when other options are available to keep service level and cost comparisons equal 3. Located in the “Utility System Fund”

In reviewing the twenty-five largest cities in the United States, the Project Team found that 16 have a solid waste user fee or dedicated “solid waste tax assessment,” with two more considering the implementation of a user fee (New York, Denver). That means 72% of the cities have a dedicated funding mechanism or are considering implementing such a mechanism. It should be noted that several cities that do not have user fees identified a variety of issues regarding illegal dumping, litter, etc. The user fees charged by the 25 largest cities in the United States are shown in Table 6-3. In addition, some cities that do not have solid waste

user fees have access to other types of revenue streams. For instance, New York City has access to several other tax revenue streams, such as a personal income tax, as well as a business income tax.

Table 6-3 Twenty-five Largest Cities in the US Monthly Solid Waste Monthly Rank City1 Population Total Monthly Fee User Fee Environmental Fee 1 New York City3 8,398,748 $ - $ - $ - 2 Los Angeles 3,990,456 36.32 - 36.32 3 Chicago 2,705,994 9.50 - 9.505 4 Houston 2,325,502 - - - 5 Phoenix 1,660,272 30.55 - 30.55 6 Philadelphia4 1,584,138 - - - 7 San Antonio 1,532,233 26.76 3.24 30.00 8 San Diego 1,425,976 - - - 9 Dallas 1,345,047 31.00 - 31.00 10 San Jose 1,030,119 107.67 - 107.67 11 Austin 964,254 43.50 8.95 52.45 12 Jacksonville 903,889 12.65 - 12.65 13 Fort Worth 895,008 22.75 0.50 23.25 14 Columbus4 892,533 - - - 15 San Francisco 883,305 78.17 - 78.17 16 Charlotte 872,498 8.93 - 8.936 17 Indianapolis 867,125 12.93 - 12.937 18 Seattle 744,955 115.90 - 115.90 19 Denver3 716,492 - - - 20 Washington DC 702,455 - - - 21 Boston 694,583 - - - 22 El Paso 682,669 19.00 5.00 24.00 23 Detroit 672,662 20.008 - 20.00 24 Nashville 669,053 - - - 25 Portland 653,115 43.60 - 43.60

1. Per U.S. Census Bureau – 2018 Population Estimate 2. A 96-gallon cart is chosen if/when other options are available to keep service level and cost comparisons equal 3. Discussions being held regarding development of a user fee 4. Cities having litter / illegal dumping issues 5. This fee pays for a “portion” of the residential solid waste services 6. Residents are assessed a specific fee on their property taxes to “offset” the cost of waste collection, disposal, and recycling services 7. Indianapolis Solid Waste Special Service District charges a tax rate of $0.0862 on each $100 net assessed value. Median house price of $180,000 x 0.0862 per $100 = $155.16 / 12 months = $12.93 per month 8. Residents of Detroit pay $240 for solid waste collection once a year. $240 / 12 = $20.

Municipal Solid Waste User Fee Estimate In order to develop an estimate of what Houston residents might expect to pay with regard to a solid waste user fee (if one were implemented), it is essential to first have a rough estimate as to the operating and capital requirements associated with operating a solid waste utility the size of Houston’s. Therefore, the Project Team developed high level

estimates for what the City would need to spend on an annual basis for rolling stock (trucks, trailers, etc.) (Table 6-4), other capital needs (Table 6-5) as well as other operating costs (Table 6-6) if the solid waste utility were to be operated in an enterprise fund versus the General Fund. Each of these amounts are detailed in the tables below, with the total cost summarized and an estimated solid waste user fee shown in Table 6-6. Therefore, the Project Team developed a preliminary estimate of the potential capital needs regarding rolling stock. Table 6-4 shows that the City needs to purchase on an annual basis approximately 41 garbage trucks and 7 transfer trailers. The analysis supporting the need to purchase on average 41 trucks and 7 trailers per year assumes an annual replacement of front-line automated sideloader (ASL) vehicles based on a seven-year useful life, and a ten-year useful life for all other vehicle types, which is fairly standard within the industry.

Table 6-4 Capital Needs - Vehicles Number Annual Vehicle Type of Frontline Frontline Useful Life Number of Replacement Annual Capital Trucks % Trucks4 (Years)5 Replacements6 Cost7 Need ASL Garbage 111 1 100% 111 7 16 $ 280,863 $ 4,493,808 ASL Recycling 50 2 100% 50 7 8 280,863 2,246,904 Knuckle Boom 41 3 80% 33 10 4 183,374 733,496 Roll-off 16 3 80% 13 10 2 140,778 281,556 Rear Load 40 3 80% 32 10 4 181,661 726,644 Tractor Truck 77 3 80% 62 10 7 88,486 619,402 Trailer 77 3 80% 62 10 7 72,500 507,500

Capital Purchase $ 9,609,310 1. ASL Garbage requirement was determined by taking the 2020 Budget number for households served (396,730) and dividing those households by the City’s goal of 900 households/garbage route and 4 service days, with weekly collection. The calculation is as follows: 396,730/900/4 = 111 (rounded up). 2. ASL Recycling requirement was determined by taking the 2020 Budget number for households served (396,730) and dividing those households by the City’s goal of 1,000 households/recycling route and 4 service days, with every other week collection. The calculation is as follows: 396,730/1000/4 x 0.5 = 50 (rounded up). 3. Per email from City staff 10/14/2019. This number includes reserves. 4. Per City staff, 20% reserve rate. Calculated as number of vehicles times frontline %. E.g. knuckle booms, 41 x 80% = 33 (rounded up). 5. Industry standard useful lives. 6. This number is calculated by dividing the frontline vehicles by the useful life and rounding up. E.g. ASL Garbage, 111/7 = 16. 7. Per spreadsheet “SWM Fleet As of 10-8-19” from Fleet Services on 10/8/2019. In addition to the capital needs associated with rolling stock, there are other capital needs that need to be incorporated into a potential solid waste user fee. These costs have been listed below in Table 6-5; and in order to “levelize” these costs over an extended period of time, the Project Team has assumed a 20-year bond is issued at a 5% interest rate to fund these capital needs. It is important to note that these are not all of the capital needs that would be required by the City’s Solid Waste Management Department. Table 6-5 merely shows those capital costs that have been identified at this time. To thoroughly forecast all of the required capital costs, it is critical that the City develop a comprehensive 10- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the solid waste utility.

Table 6-5 Capital Needs - Other Facility Amount

New Depositories1 5 x $ 1,640,000 $8,200,000 Transfer Station Repairs2 Northwest Transfer Station $4,801,139 Southwest Transfer Station 650,118 Southeast Transfer Station 3,846,242 Transfer Station Repairs Subtotal $9,297,500 New Transfer Station – Northeast3 $8,000,000 - $10,000,000

Total Capital Needs4 $25,497,500 – 27,497,500 20 Year Bond Issue at 5% $2,126,228 1. Per City Staff – per City General Services Department – 2018 (not including land). 2. Solid Waste Disposal Asset Valuation – City of Houston Solid Waste Management Department – July 16, 2012 SAIC. Inflated at CPI for non-residential construction, 1.86% per year for 2012-2019. 3. High level estimate. $10 million assumed for debt issue. 4. This is not a comprehensive list of all capital needs, but merely a preliminary assessment.

If the City elects to place the solid waste utility within an enterprise fund, there are several costs that should be budgeted regarding the solid waste utility receiving support services from the General Fund as well as for the billing for solid waste services, which would most likely be provided by the City’s utility billing function (i.e. water and wastewater utility). The costs in Table 6-6 are merely estimates and would need to be finalized as part of a comprehensive cost of service study if the City were to elect to implement a residential solid waste user fee.

Table 6-6 Other Costs Cost Amount

General Fund – Support Services1 $1,000,000

2 Customer Billing Customer Count Billing Fee Annual Expense Residential 462,736 3 $ 0.75 $ 4,164,624 Multi-Family 478,538 3 0.75 4,306,842 Commercial 38,975 4 0.75 350,775 Customer Billing Subtotal $ 8,822,241

Grand Total $ 9,822,241 1. Estimated costs for legal, financial, procurement, and human resources. This cost varies widely by city. NewGen believes this to be a conservative estimate. 2. Estimated cost, typically paid to the municipality’s water and wastewater utility, or electric utility (if municipally owned and operated). This fee typically ranges from $0.50 to $1.00 per month per account. NewGen assumed $0.75 per account. 3. Per Waste Generation Forecast 4. This number was calculated on a pro-rata basis using Fort Worth’s number of commercial accounts and population compared to Houston’s.

Environmental Fees Based on the Solid Waste Management Department’s FY 2020 budget, and the assumptions shown in Tables 6-4, 6-5 and 6-6, the Project Team developed a high-level estimate of what a user fee might potentially be for the City of Houston if it were to move towards the creation of a monthly residential solid waste user fee. The analysis shown in Table 6-7 is an estimate using the FY 2020 Solid Waste Management Department budget of $84,956,973 and the Recycling Revenue Fund budget of $4,934,277 as a starting point. Based on this analysis it is estimated, as shown in Table 6-7 the user fee would be approximately $22.40 to $23.05 per month per single-family residential account. Table 6-7 Estimated Monthly Residential User Fee Inflation FY 2020 Adjustment FY 2021

FY 2020 SWMD Budget $ 84,956,973 3% $ 87,505,682 FY 2020 Recycling Revenue Fund Budget $ 4,934,277 3% $ 5,085,305 Rolling Stock Capital Requirement $ 9,609,3101 3% $ 9,897,589 Other Capital Requirement (Debt) $ 2,126,2282 $ 2,126,228 Other Costs $ 9,822,2413 3% $ 10,116,908

Total Costs $ 111,449,028 $ 114,728,713 Households 396,730 1.28% 4 401,808 Cost/HH/Month $ 23.41 $ 23.79 1. Per Table 6-3, Capital Needs - Vehicles 2. Per Table 6-4, Capital Needs – Other 3. Per Table 6-5, Other Costs 4. Household annual growth rate per Waste Generation Forecast

The Project Team investigated establishing an environmental fee for the City. The Project Team looked at Austin, Fort Worth, and San Antonio for comparison purposes while researching environmental fees in the State of Texas. Through communication with staff members for each city and research of online information, the Project Team developed an understanding of the use and application of such fees. In general, environmental fees are used to defray costs incurred by solid waste management departments for activities that cannot be assigned to individual customers, such as illegal dumping clean-up. The fee is generally charged to all residents, even if they are not customers of the city’s solid waste management department. The fee is also charged to commercial and industrial accounts. Table 6-8 shows a summary of the fees for the comparison cities.

Table 6-8 Environmental Fees Customer Type Austin Fort Worth San Antonio $8.95 total Apartment Complexes: $3.24 total ▪ $4.70 to Solid Waste $0.50/unit ▪ $2.244 to Solid Residential Department Waste ▪ $4.25 to Code Residential: $0.50 ▪ $1.00 to Parks Enforcement

$3.24 total ▪ $2.244 to Solid Commercial $16.50 $10 Waste ▪ $1.00 to Parks

$3.24 total ▪ $2.24 to Solid Industrial $16.50 $35 Waste ▪ $1.00 to Parks

Austin: Austin calls their fee the “Clean Community Fee.” The fee is associated (i.e. linked to the individual or business) with an electric meter. However, there are sections of Austin where Austin Energy is not the electric provider, but Austin Water and Austin Resource Recovery (ARR) are service providers. In this scenario ARR would add the Clean Community Fee to the water account if a physical structure is present. For multi-unit structures, both residential and commercial, the City’s premise management team determines the number of units by reviewing site plans. The Clean Community Fee is applied to each unit in the structure. For example, in an apartment complex with a leasing office, each apartment unit would be billed the residential fee, and the leasing office would be billed the commercial fee. The solid waste portion of the fee funds services such as street sweeping, litter abatement, Recycle & Reuse Drop-Off Center, business outreach, Austin Reuse Centers, zero waste program development, Clean Austin, dead animal collection, and boulevard sweeping. Fort Worth: Fort Worth calls their fee the “Environmental Protection Fee.” Revenues from the fee are handled by the City’s Code Enforcement Department. The fee is associated with water meters. For apartment complexes with a master meter, the residential fee is billed to each apartment unit and the commercial fee is billed to the leasing office. For commercial properties with multiple businesses, such as strip malls, the commercial fee is assigned to each business unit. The Code Department has on file the number of individual units associated with a property. The number is updated for each property every two years. Fort Worth also charges a separate industrial fee. Revenues generated by the fee primarily cover activities associated with hazardous waste. Revenues may also cover costs for disposal services, environmental programs or environmental services. These dedicated funds help the City pay for federal and state environmental mandates such as cleaning up abandoned property, asbestos abatement, underground storage tank compliance, storm water management, spill response clean-up, and operation of a household hazardous waste collection facility. The Environmental Protection Fee was instituted in 1996. The fee amount has not changed since then. According to City staff, 75% of residents indicated in a survey that they would be willing to raise the fee to $2/month.

San Antonio: San Antonio calls their fee the “Environmental Fee.” The fee is associated with electric meters. For multi- unit structures, the fee is on the submeters, so each individual apartment or business unit is billed the fee. The fee is also on electric meters associated with things like lighted billboards, pump stations, etc. This fee is intended to defray expenses incurred to clean up illegally dumped waste, collecting and disposing of dead animals, performing regulatory maintenance on closed landfills, providing environmental services to the City's park system, and equitably sharing costs for neighborhood clean-ups benefiting residents and businesses that do not pay a monthly solid waste processing fee. Based on Houston’s current population, and assuming a $1 fee for residential customers and a $5 fee for commercial/industrial accounts, the SWMD could expect to generate approximately $13,633,788 in revenue from an environmental fee. The calculation is shown in Table 6-9 below. The actual fee amounts would be determined by what programs would be funded through the fee.

Table 6-9 Houston Proposed Monthly Environmental Fee Revenue Customer Type Number of Customers Fee Amount Annual Revenue Residential 462,736 1 $1 $ 5,552,832 3 Multi-Family 478,538 1 $1 5,742,456 Commercial/Industrial 38,975 2 $5 2,338,500 Total $ 13,633,788 1. Per Waste Generation Report 2. This number was calculated on a pro-rata basis using Fort Worth’s number of commercial accounts and population compared to Houston’s. Fort Worth’s population is 895,008, Houston’s population is 2,325,502. Fort Worth’s number of business accounts is about 15,000. 2,325,502 / 895,008 x 15,000 = 38,975. 3. Calculation: 462,736 customers * $1 * 12 months = $5,552,832 annual revenue.

Other Financial Recommendations Develop a ten-year capital improvement plan. The City must maintain several facilities including transfer stations, environmental service centers, depositories and recycling facilities as well as a large fleet of vehicles. The City should prepare a comprehensive capital improvement plan that forecasts long-term needs and updates this on a regular basis. Continue to secure grants for program implementation. The City has been successful in securing grants from agencies such as H-GAC and other public and private entities. In order to expand the scope of the City’s waste minimization and recycling efforts, it should expand its outreach in securing grants. As an increasing number of private entities take greater interest in reducing their environmental footprint, the City should reach out to the private firms and associations for such grants. It is recommended that a task force focusing on the private sector be formed to assist in implementing the Plan. Begin discussions concerning a solid waste user fee. The Project Team would recommend that the City’s executive management and solid waste management staff begin discussions regarding the benefits of a solid waste user fee and how it might benefit the General Fund. This would include developing a plan for how to address this topic with the various constituents that comprise the City of Houston. Develop a comprehensive solid waste cost of service, rate design and environmental fee study. Concurrent with the first three recommendations, the Project Team would recommend a comprehensive cost of service study be undertaken (including the development of a ten-year capital improvement plan). This will allow the City to accurately

forecast the City’s capital and operating costs for current and new solid waste and recycling programs and the associated user fees and environmental fees required to fund these programs in a long-term sustainable manner. Landfill Disposal Landfill Policy Issues ▪ Regional MSW landfills (Type I landfills) have approximately 30-40 years of remaining capacity. The three landfills that the City primarily relies upon for disposal are the McCarty Road Landfill, the Atascocita Landfill and the Blue Ridge Landfill. Respectively, these landfills have 13, 25 and 80 years of remaining capacity at current rates of disposal. ▪ The City’s current landfill contracts were renegotiated in 2020. These agreements establish tipping fees and operational requirements for the City’s transfer stations and rates for landfills. The City relies 100% ▪ There is approximately 20-30 years of remaining disposal capacity at C&D (Type IV) landfills. on the private sector for ▪ Reliance on the private sector for waste disposal reduces certain financial risks to the City. These include potential environmental liabilities, costs of its disposal needs. construction and operation, and long-term financial responsibility for the sites. ▪ It takes 10-15 years to site, permit, design and construct a new landfill. ▪ There are TCEQ regulations related to where landfills can be located and three counties in the H-GAC region have site location ordinances. ▪ Other site selection criteria include proximity to sensitive land uses such as schools and hospitals and access to roadways, among others. ▪ Environmental justice issues must be considered when selecting a site for a new landfill. Five key factors that will affect remaining MSW landfill capacity at any specific landfill include the following:

▪ Is there the potential that the landfill can expand its current capacity by either going higher or adding acreage? ▪ A new landfill in the region is permitted and constructed. ▪ After a regional landfill reaches capacity, which landfill will accept the waste previously disposed at the closed landfill? ▪ Potential significant reductions in waste through waste reduction or recycling efforts exist. ▪ The region’s Type IV landfills have less capacity than the Type I landfills. It is possible that as Type IV options are reduced, some of the waste that currently goes to Type IV landfills will ultimately go to Type I Landfills.

MATF Survey Question: What do you believe are the biggest disposal issues facing Houston? The City is required by law to assure that there is at a minimum once-per-week collection of municipal solid waste. Other services provided by the City are intended to improve the environment (recycling and recovery programs) and increase the availability of disposal options (depositories). Table 6-10 presents the MATF’s scoring of the significance of disposal.

Table 6-10 Major Disposal Issues Identified by the MATF Challenges Very Not a Significant Significant Concern Score 3 points 2 points 1 point MSW Landfill capacity being 30-40 years 4 4 20 C&D Landfill capacity being 20-30 years 5 3 21 City has no control over new capacity 3 2 1 14 Anticipated cost increases of disposal 5 2 19 Selecting sites for new landfills 9 1 29 Environmental justice related to new facilities 4 2 1 17 Environmental impacts of landfills 3 4 1 18 Distances waste will have to be hauled when close-in landfills reach capacity 8 2 28 Points 3 2 1 The MATF ranked disposal issues from most significant to least significant, as follows.

1. Selecting sites for new landfills 2. Distances waste will have to be hauled when close-in landfills reach capacity 3. C&D Landfill capacity being 20-30 years. 4. MSW landfill capacity being 30-40 years. 5. Anticipated cost increases of disposal 6. Environmental impacts of landfills Figure 6-1 illustrates landfill capacity in 2040 if there are no significant changes in current facilities or new facilities sited. All of the landfills in the H-GAC region have indicated that they accept waste from Harris County. By the year 2040, five landfills, including McCarty Road and Atascocita will have reached capacity.

Figure 6-1 Remaining Tons of Capacity in Type I Landfills in 2040 (million tons) Figure 6-1 illustrates remaining MSW landfill

McCarty Road capacity in 2040. Without Atascocita major changes, capacity Blue Ridge falls from approximately Altair Disposal Services Landfill Baytown Landfill 267 million tons in 2018 to Chambers County 72 million tons in 2040. Coastal Plains Recycling and Disposal Facilty Seven of the 12 landfills Fort Bend Regional Landfill will have reached capacity Galveston County Landfill Seabreeze Enviornmental Landfill before 2040 unless Security Landfill RDF capacity additions or new Whispering Pines Landfill landfills are identified. -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

The City’s contract for both transfer stations and landfill disposal expired in 2019. The City is in the process of renegotiating these agreements. This action item is to sign mid-term agreements for the disposal of waste that is not part of the transfer station agreement. The City’s contract for disposal provides the City the option to direct haul waste from the point of collection to the landfill site without using one of the transfer stations. These contracts are used in instances where the landfill is closer to the point of generation than the transfer station, or in times when the transfer station may not be operational. In 2019, approximately 25% of the City’s waste was directly hauled to a landfill. Landfills that the City has relied on for direct haul include the Atascocita Landfill and the Blue Ridge Landfill and Waste Management Type IV landfills. Continuously monitor landfill capacity in the region. For residential waste, the City relies on landfills through agreements with private operators, whether through the transfer station agreement or the landfill agreements. These agreements provide for disposal services for 10 years. A review of TCEQ annual reports indicates that all MSW landfills in the region reported that they accepted waste from Harris County. A number of factors will affect this regional capacity including continued regional population increases, economic activity, success of waste minimization and recycling programs, storm events and other factors. Also, as C&D landfill capacity decreases with the closure of Type IV landfills over the next, 20 years, this C&D waste will have to be disposed of at MSW landfills. However, there is also the potential that landfill owners will seek to expand current facilities, adding to regional capacity.

There are three landfills in the H-GAC region that are currently pursuing permit amendments to expand their landfills. Seabreeze Landfill Expansion: In January 2019, the Type I Seabreeze Landfill owners filed a permit amendment to modify their facility. The amendment will add approximately 14.5 million cubic yards of capacity. Greenhouse Road Landfill Expansion: Currently, the Greenhouse Road Type IV landfill is seeking a permit expansion from TCEQ. The expansion is projected to add approximately 23 years to the facility’s life. Tall Pines Landfill Expansion: The Tall Pines Landfill Expansion permit amendment was originally filed in 2016. The amendment would increase capacity from 11.8 million cubic yards to 26.9 million cubic yards.

City should site, permit and contract a City-owned landfill to meet the City’s long-term disposal needs. The City relies entirely on private-sector landfills to meet its disposal needs. This places long-term risks of not having available disposal capacity for MSW not only generated by the City’s residential sector, but also the City’s businesses and institutions. A landfill site for the City should be between 600 and1000 acres. This size of the parcel will allow for significant buffer zones, long-term disposal capacity and the ability to site ancillary waste management facilities (maintenance facilities and material recovery operations) at the same location. There are federal regulations pertaining to where landfills can be located and what areas are restricted from landfills. Restricted areas are those close to airports, floodplains, wetlands and certain geologic conditions. Landfill sites should also take into consideration proximity to schools, hospitals, cemeteries, historic sites and other sensitive land uses. Environmental Justice issues must also be assessed as part of the site selection process. There are three possible scenarios for Houston’s future MSW disposal program.

1. Continued reliance on the private sector for disposal of waste; 2. City ownership of a landfill with public operations; and 3. City ownership of a landfill with private operations, similar to how the City manages its transfer stations. Examples of landfill ownership and operation are presented in Table 6-11

Table 6-11 Landfill Ownership/Operation for Major Texas Cities Public / Public Public / Private Private / Private Austin ⚫ Arlington ⚫ Corpus Christi ⚫ Dallas ⚫ El Paso ⚫ Fort Worth ⚫ Garland ⚫ San Antonio ⚫ Houston ⚫

Public vs. Private Ownership Currently, the City relies completely on the private sector for disposal of waste at one of several landfills in the region. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with public versus private ownership of landfills. Table 6-12 analyzes public ownership.

Table 6-12 Public Ownership Advantages & Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages

▪ Control over capacity ▪ Environmental Risks ▪ Greater cost control in a less competitive ▪ Cost overruns overall landfill market as landfills close ▪ Site selection process is highly political ▪ Revenue generation potential ▪ Capital cost requirements ▪ Ability to place additional waste management facilities at the site

Evaluate the potential for using existing landfill sites for material recovery options, including organics recovery and C&D recycling. At some landfills in the region, there is both C&D recycling and organics recovery. The SWMD should work with regional landfill owners to determine whether there are additional opportunities for using these sites for recovery of materials. Included in this recommendation is for the City to continue to explore options for using closed landfill sites for productive uses similar to the Sunnyside Landfill Solar Project (Figure 6-2).

Figure 6-2 Sunnyside Landfill Solar Project

Collection Policy Issues

Sunnyside Landfill Project: Few advances in landfill technologies are anticipated in the near to mid-term for the design, operation and closure of landfills. Some landfills in Texas, including closed landfills are installing photovoltaic solar systems as a cover option. This is a unique way of using land that is otherwise unsuitable for many other needs. The City of Houston has recently approved a project that involves placing solar panels over the closed Sunnyside Landfill. This project will ultimately generate 70 MW of electricity. The City can, through various policies, encourage other landfills or closed sites to develop these types of projects which would help achieve the City’s Greenhouse Gas Emission reduction targets.

Collection Services Providing efficient and reliable MSW, recyclables and brush and bulky waste collection is the core service that is provided by the SWMD. At a minimum, state law requires that the City provide once per week collection of MSW or require such frequency of collection by ordinance. In addition to these services the SWMD provides a number of other services that are described in Section 2.0 of this Plan

▪ The collection system needs to be right-sized to improve service efficiency and reliability. More routes need to be added to address Houston’s unique characteristics. This will require more trucks and staff positions. ▪ The City’s aging fleet is affecting program reliability and efficiency. Older trucks (beyond 7 years) create service reliability problems and increases the annual maintenance budget significantly.

▪ Staffing is an issue – in 2018, actual overtime costs for the SWMD staff were equivalent to 37.5 FTEs. A review of other cities shows that Houston staff serve almost twice as many households per staff member compared to other cities. The understaffing leads to significant overtime and high stress conditions. ▪ The City’s staff put in significant overtime hours to deal with Hurricane Harvey. With climate change, more frequent and severe storms can be expected. ▪ The Houston region has experienced several storm events in the recent past which have placed a significant burden on the City’s collection staff. In the past 20 years, over 11 major storm events and hurricanes have been recorded. ▪ The commercial sector is reliant on the private haulers for waste and recyclable material collection. ▪ Apartments are responsible for their collection. A growing percentage of Houstonians will rely on building owners for waste collection and recycling services. ▪ The City’s large area and land use patterns makes it difficult to efficiently collect waste from certain parts of the City. Some of the outlying areas might be better served through contracts with the private sector. As part of the MATF Priorities workshop, MATF members were asked to evaluate the services that SWMD provides. The average scores are presented in Table 6-13, below. A 5 is the most favorable possible response. The results of the survey show generally positive marks for MSW, recyclable and yard and tree waste collection services. The MATF rated services associated with junk waste collection, Environmental Service Centers, public information programs, and illegal dumping in the lower half of the rating scale. Comments related to facility access both in terms of proximity and hours of operation were cited as factors for low scores. Illegal dump clean-up was rated as having the lowest performance of all SWMD services. MATF Survey Question: How would you rank the services provided by SWMD?

Table 6-13 SWMD Performance Scores by the MATF 5- Highest Performance SWMD Activity 1-Lowest Performance MSW Collection 4.3 Recycling Collection 3.0 Yard Waste Collection 3.1 Junk Waste Collection 2.6 Tree Waste Collection 3.0 Environmental Service Centers 2.4 Illegal Dumping Clean-up 1.6 Depositories, Recycling Centers 2.3 Public Information 2.3

Collection Policy & Program Options

Provide efficient collection of MSW, recyclables, organics and brush/bulky waste. To improve collection efficiency, four things must happen: 1) Routing must be right-sized, 2) fleet of trucks that are used has to be upgraded, 3) staffing levels for collection must be commensurate with the right-sizing of routes and 4) fleet maintenance must be improved.

Program Right-Sizing: It is critical that the program be right-sized and operating with a modern fleet that can perform reliably. To accomplish this, the number of trucks and staff must be increased from its current levels and older trucks must be phased out on an accelerated basis. The phase-out should occur over several years so as not to create the need to replace a large number in any one year. Figure 6-3 shows the estimated number of trucks that will be required in future years for MSW collection and recyclable material collection. In addition to right-sizing the fleet, the City must also replace older trucks on an accelerated basis in order to reduce maintenance costs. A review of maintenance records shows that the City is paying approximately $1.0 million more in maintenance to keep older (more than 7 years) trucks in the fleet.

Figure 6-3 Projected Residential MSW & Recyclable Collection Vehicle Needs* *assumes 70% vehicle availabiltiy

250

200 70 67 69 64 66 150

100

143 146 149 153 156 50

- 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Solid Waste Collection Recycling Collection

Implement data management program for collection fleet and provide management support to evaluate data for more efficient routing and accountability. The City currently has a contract for data management related to fleet activities. There have been implementation issues associated with this contract. The City should resolve these issues and put in place an active and dynamic data collection system that provides real-time data related to collection efficiency, recycling participation, traffic impacts, and other data. Implement “Slow Down to Get Around.” In 2019, the Texas Legislature adopted HB 61 which was designed to enhance the safety of solid waste collection crews. This law requires drivers on Texas streets to treat solid waste collection crews in the same manner that they currently must treat emergency personnel and construction workers.

Transfer Station Policy Issues Continuously evaluate alternative fuels and vehicle technologies including CNG and electric vehicles. The City relies primarily on diesel fuel for its collection fleet (including residential collection, brush and bulky waste and illegal dump clean-up). There are communities in Texas and other cities that rely on compressed natural gas (CNG) to power their collection fleets. To implement a CNG or Electric Vehicle (EV) program, the City would have to: 1) invest in the fueling infrastructure; 2) invest in new trucks replacing older diesel trucks; 3) train Fleet Management how Bay Area EV Garbage Truck to maintain CNG or EV collection and support vehicles; 4) train ( collection staff to operate vehicles; and 5) monitor progress and look for additional opportunities. A 2016 MIT article estimates the cost of an EV garbage truck at approximately $150,000 more expensive than a comparable diesel vehicle. With advances in technology and battery storage, these costs are anticipated to decrease over time. Contract for the collection in areas outside the City’s core beltway. One of the key factors affecting the efficiency of the SWMD collection fleet is the vast area where the City is responsible for providing collection service. To reduce the mileage on collection vehicles, some of the routes located in these areas should be consider for privatization. The contract would require that any hauler providing service to these areas match exactly the level of service that is provided by City crews. Evaluate the potential for managed competition to reduce solid waste management costs for the City. Managed competition is A provision of the 2020 City of Houston defined as a process for determining whether certain City services can Budget is for the City to fund a study to be out-sourced to the private sector. The managed competition process evaluate managed competition for both generally identifies specific areas, such as solid waste management, Solid Waste and Fleet Operations. The where the private sector is given the opportunity to compete against the study began in December 2019 and the City for identical services. This can include all or a portion of the services first phase is anticipated to be completed provided by the City. One of the challenges associated with managed in 2020. competition is that the SWMD currently provides several services that are outside the normal collection of MSW and recyclables. Some of these services include: storm debris management, special event clean- ups, clean-up of homeless camp sites, dead animal collection and others. To reflect a valid cost comparison between the City and private-sector bidders, these costs must be segregated from the City’s competitive bid. Transfer Stations ▪ A new contract for operation of the City’s transfer stations was renegotiated in 2020 This contract will set the terms of payment, length of contract term, and other additional services including the addition of recyclable materials transfer capabilities. ▪ As the City grows and disposal costs increase in coming years, it is anticipated that the cost of disposing of MSW at the transfer stations will increase. ▪ The City will continue to balance the use of transfer stations versus direct haul of MSW to landfills – factors will include the costs of disposal at these facilities, haul cost savings, queue times at the transfer stations and landfills and additional wear and tear on trucks associated with using the landfill versus the transfer stations.

▪ Houston’s traffic congestion, along with the City’s growing area, will require the construction of new transfer stations in the future. ▪ Transfer stations will have to be more than just MSW disposal sites. Because the City will be increasing efforts to reduce MSW generation through increased recycling and organics management, transfer stations will be logical locations for the efficient hauling of recyclables and/or organics to processing facilities and markets. ▪ The Southwest Transfer Station has access issues that cause traffic and safety issues. The City should evaluate measures that can improve access into this facility. ▪ When evaluating sites for new transfer stations, both public and private entities must take into consideration environmental justice issues. ▪ The City is the owner of the three transfer stations it relies upon for a majority of the MSW collected. As the owner, the City is responsible for making capital improvements; the operator is responsible for maintaining the site and replacing equipment. In 2012 the City evaluated the three transfer stations. A total of $8 million in site improvements was recommended. Because the facilities are 20 years old, the need to make on-going capital improvements will be necessary. ▪ There is a total of 13 transfer stations in the City of Houston with 19,625 tons per day throughput capacity in total; regionally there are 21 transfer stations. In 2017, a total of 2.3 million tons were processed in Houston transfer stations and 2.5 tons processed regionally. Transfer Station Policy & Program Options Negotiate a contract for the operation of the City’s three transfer stations. The City owns three transfer stations. These transfer stations are essential to providing efficient collection of MSW by City crews. Services provided as part of the transfer station contracts include operation of the scale facility, operation and maintenance of the facility and hauling MSW from the transfer station to a permitted landfill. As owner, the City is responsible for any major structural repairs to the facilities. Make necessary capital investments in the existing transfer stations. The City’s three transfer stations were constructed approximately 20 years ago. While the City contracts for the operation of these facilities, the City is responsible for making any capital investments required to keep the facilities operational. One of the major transfer stations improvements that are recommended as part of this plan is to improve access to the Southwest Transfer Station. The entrance to this facility is from Westpark Drive. At times during peak hours of operation, trucks can back-up onto Westpark Drive causing traffic and safety concerns. The City is in the process of designing a Northeast Transfer Station. Once designed the facility should be constructed and contracted out for operations. The City has determined that it is appropriate to plan, design and construct a fourth transfer station to be located at the Northeast Service Center at 5711 Neches Street. The design of this new transfer station should incorporate opportunities to process certain waste streams such as organics and other recyclables for future recovery at organics processors and the FCC facility. Develop recyclable material transfer capabilities throughout the City, primarily at existing transfer station locations. Since March 2019, all materials recovered as part of the City’s single stream recycling program have been directed to the FCC MRF. This requires that recyclable materials be transported from all sectors of the City to this one facility. Adding capability to transfer this material the way MSW is transported using transfer stations would decrease operating costs and improve program redundancy and efficiency. In the southwest quadrant, the City can use the Brittmore transfer station once its lease to Waste Management has expired. Identify site locations and permit / construct two additional transfer stations. As the City continues to grow and traffic conditions remain an issue, there will be a need for additional transfer stations in the mid-to-long-term. The site selection of these additional transfer stations will have to take into consideration where the population is growing and the

location of landfills anticipated to be used in future years. If the City proceeds to develop its own landfill, it would be good planning to conduct siting for both the landfill and the transfer stations at the same time. One of the options for securing long-term disposal capacity is through a rail-haul facility. The Region’s landfills have approximately 30-40 years of remaining capacity. These are all privately owned and operated landfills. One potential way of securing long-term disposal capacity for the City’s waste stream is to haul MSW by rail to a remote landfill. Rail haul is used by major cities including Seattle, Chicago and New York. This is a capital-intensive process and one that requires contracts with rail companies and remote disposal sites, or with a private company to manage all aspects of rail haul. Some of the City’s current transfer stations are located along rail lines which may make this option feasible. Source Reduction, Reuse, Recycling Houstonians’ purchasing decisions, landscaping practices, and understanding of what is recyclable directly affect the cost of collecting, processing, and disposing waste. Figure 6-4 presents historic trends for residential waste disposal rates. This is the amount of waste that is collected by the City and taken to either a transfer station or landfill and includes both household trash and bulky waste. The average for the period 2014-2018 was 9.6 pounds per household per day (p/h/d). In FY 2019, the estimated disposal rate is 8.7 p/h/d versus 10.0 p/h/d in 2018. This 1.3 pound difference translates to 93,000 tons, or $2.0 million in disposal fees. A comparison to other cities shows that a 3.8 p/h/d rate is possible, but requires significant investments in public information, mandatory programs, bans on disposal of certain materials and other policies and programs.

Figure 6-4 Residential Waste Generation Rate 12 A one pound reduction in the City’s overall per capita generation rate is 9.9 9.8 9.9 10.0 10 9.1 9.1 equal to 766,000 tons per year; 8.7 regionally, the same reduction is 1.8 8 million tons per year. Waste minimization is the most cost- 6 effective means of addressing the City’s waste management needs. Waste not

lbs/household/day 4 generated does not have to be collected, transported, or disposed. 2

0 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Table 6-14 presents a comparison of other Texas cities’ waste disposal rates for residential waste. Disposal rates are net of waste minimization, recycling, and organics recovery. It should be noted that the City of San Antonio provides bulky

waste collection only twice per year and allows residents to use one of four bulky waste collection centers. Fort Worth and Dallas provide once per month collection of bulky waste.

Table 6-14 Comparative Waste Disposal Rates City Houston San Antonio Dallas Fort Worth Austin

Daily residential waste collected per 6.2 5.9 5.6 6.0 3.5 household/week (Pounds)

Daily Bulky Waste/HH (Pounds) 2.7 0.5 3.0 0.6 0.3

Total 8.9* 6.4 8.6 6.6 3.8

*The difference between the 8.7 in Figure 6-4 and 8.9 in this Table is due to variances in reporting periods.

Table 6-15 presents recycling rates for the residential sector for other cities. Houston’s program during this survey was impacted by Hurricane Harvey when the program was cancelled for several months. For 2019, the estimated recycling rate per household is anticipated to be 290 pounds per capita-day (p/cd).

Table 6-15 Recycling Performance in Other Cities City Houston* San Antonio Dallas Fort Worth Austin

Annual Recyclables / HH (Pounds) 183 328 478 365 474

Mandatory Multi-family Recycling No Yes Starts 2020 No Yes

*In 2019, this is estimated to be 281.77 Source: City Budget information Table 6-16 shows the overall disposal rates presented on a regional basis. These data include waste from both the residential and commercial sectors. Table 6-16 results show the following:

▪ With the exception of 2018 (Hurricane Harvey), H-GAC is close to the state-wide per capita generation rate. ▪ The Austin and San Antonio regions generation rates are 85% of H-GAC. ▪ Hurricane Harvey’s impact is seen in the increase from 7.0 to 8.2 p/cd.

Table 6-16 Comparative Per-Capita Disposal Rates (2016-2018) (pounds)

Region Houston – San Antonio Dallas – Fort Austin State Average Galveston Worth

H-GAC NCTCOG AACOG CAPCOG

Per-capita Disposal Rates (2016) 7.08 6.20 7.89 5.98 6.83

Per-capita Disposal Rates (2017) 7.06 6.13 7.79 6.02 6.84

Per-capita Disposal Rates (2018) 8.24 5.65 7.59 5.95 7.22

Source: TCEQ MSW Annual Report 2018 Includes data from both MSW and C&D landfills

There are several variables that affect the waste generation and recycling rates, including the composition of the regional economy, storm events, types of local solid waste programs, and the amounts of waste that might be either imported or exported out of the region. Even with these variables, however, it is clear from these tables that there are significant opportunities for the City and the region to extend landfill life through more aggressive waste minimization and recycling efforts. Key Waste Minimization, Reuse & Recycling Policy Issues The City collects recyclable materials once every two weeks. The City uses the same type of truck (side loaders and sometimes rear loaders) it uses for solid waste collection to collect recyclable materials. Key issues related to collection include the following: ▪ Houston’s recycling diversion rate is low compared to other cities. An expanded public information campaign is needed to increase both the quantity and quality of materials. One of the reasons for this is that the other cities provide once-per-week collection of recyclable materials versus Houston where materials are collected every other week. While there are no empirical data available regarding recovery rates for once-per-week versus once every two weeks collection, analyzing the effect of collection frequency on recycling diversion rate is something the City may want to consider in the future. Increasing collection frequency will significantly increase collection costs. ▪ There are high levels of contamination in the materials that are collected as part of the residential recycling program (approximately 30-40%). This increases the cost of collection and processing. ▪ As participation rates in the recycling program increase, more trucks and staff must be directed to the recycling program. This may result in reductions in available garbage collection vehicles and staff. ▪ Through the agreement with FCC to process recycled materials, all recycled materials from each quadrant of the City must be delivered to this northeast Houston FCC materials recovery facility. ▪ In order to supplement City collection vehicles and crews, the City contracted for a private firm to provide recycling collection services in the northwest quadrant of the City. This is anticipated to be a short-term contract, with the City providing services as soon as fleet and staffing needs are addressed. ▪ Residents of multi-family households have limited access to recycling opportunities. Unlike Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, owners of multi-family complexes are not required to provide recycling services to their residents. This is an increasingly important issue as Houston’s population shifts to a greater percentage living in multi-family households.

▪ The value of recyclable markets has declined significantly over the past two years, in large part due to the loss of the China market for recycled materials. Market development was identified as a high priority action by the MATF. Lower values for recyclable materials may have an impact on private sector recycling. ▪ Sixty-eight percent of the City’s waste is generated by the commercial and industrial sectors. These sectors are also responsible for a large percent of what is currently recycled in Houston. To increase recycling significantly, this sector will need to achieve higher rates of recovery. Waste Minimization, Reuse & Recycling Options Expand education/promotion of source reduction, reuse and recycling for Market Development – residents, including working with non-profits and private sector to Senate Bill 649 leverage existing efforts. Because the primary role of local government is to focus on the down-stream (i.e. recovery) segment of a product’s lifecycle, the Senate Bill 649 relating to the City is limited on how directly involved it can be on up-stream (i.e. manufacturing) promotion of the use of recyclable and mid-stream (i.e. reuse/repurpose) segments of a product’s lifecycle. materials as feedstock for Generally, cities’ involvement focuses on expanding the promotion of waste processing and manufacturing was prevention, reuse opportunities, and recycling right (reducing contamination). filed during the 86th Legislative The City is involved in reuse through the Reuse Warehouse and chemical swap Session and took effect on shop but is more directly involved in the recycling of materials through the September 1, 2019. This bill existing recycling program. As part of the public information program, the City mandates researching methods to has, and should continue to work collaboratively with organizations such as State encourage the use of recyclables of Texas Alliance for Recycling, Keep Houston Beautiful and other environmental as inputs for the creation of new organizations. products, which is part of a larger plan to invest in, expand, and Include more information regarding environmental impacts in City promote the state’s recycling education materials, (i.e. upstream decisions for consumers). The City economy. The State of Texas could include impacts in its education materials to convey the benefits of source Alliance for Recycling (STAR) was reduction, reuse, and recycling. The City could include a “guideline for a driving force behind the consumption” to explain the benefits of reusable water bottles, packing lunches in reusable containers, etc. legislation, with its Business Council members conducting Lead by example through expanding the City purchasing / procurement active advocacy. This legislation guidelines to expand on source reduction, reuse, recycling requirements requires TCEQ to examine the for City service and product providers. The City could create a sustainability current recycling economy and purchasing team, perhaps through the Office of Sustainability in coordination take specific actions to develop with the Strategic Procurement Division, to develop an Environmentally markets. Preferable Purchasing Guide (EPPG) to promote and encourage environmental stewardship across all City agencies. Lead by example through expanding the City guidelines on source reduction, reuse, recycling efforts for all City agencies and offices. The City could expand existing guidelines for every City agency to participate in source reduction, reuse, and recycling efforts through an Administrative Procedure (AP) or policy provided to each office and agency, disseminated by the Mayor’s Office in coordination with the Office of Sustainability. Develop Alternative Markets. The City could work with processors, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development to determine whether reclaimers and/or end users could be attracted to the region to accept more types of recyclables in the City’s program, and expand on current local markets where possible. Working with the Office of Economic Development, the City could determine whether tax abatement or

other incentives could be provided to encourage more public/private partnerships similar to the City’s current processing agreement with FCC. Add more drop off locations for recyclables, chemicals, and electronics. In order to make recycling and reuse more convenient for the residents of Houston, the City of Dallas typically holds 10 City could increase the number of drop off locations currently available. Currently, Batteries, Oil, Paint and there are 6 drop-off locations, five additional facilities would be required to place one Antifreeze recycling (BOPA) in each City Council district. events per year, and City of San Antonio, in addition to their Add more collection events for household hazardous wastes. Currently, HHW collection facility, Houston offers HHW collection at the Westpark Consumer Recycling Center and typically has 3 mobile collection each of the Environmental Service Centers. The City could increase the frequency events per year. of these events to three times per year. As part of advertising for these events, the City could stress the significance of lithium battery contamination in the garbage and recycling streams and the importance of properly handling lithium batteries. Expand types of materials collected and reused in City-operated reuse of materials beyond current building materials, electronics, and chemicals. In conjunction with adding more collection events for HHW efforts described above, if certain items seem better suited to add to the City’s reuse centers, add the items. Reuse centers would need to have space to accommodate additional materials and potential recipients of the added materials should be identified prior to adding materials. Add additional materials to recycling programs (e.g. textiles) The City could continue to work with FCC to determine what and when materials could be added to the curbside recycling program. The City could also work with American Textile Recycling Service (ATRS), Green City Recycler, or other private companies and non-profits to determine the viability of expanding items that can be dropped off at Environmental Service Centers or Neighborhood Depositories for reuse or recycling, such as textiles. Adopt a mandatory residential recycling ordinance, with strict code enforcement to issue citations for placing recyclables in garbage containers. Providing mandatory recycling services via ordinance requiring residents to participate in curbside recycling would increase recycling participation and disposal diversion in the City. The establishment of a mandatory recycling ordinance would require the drafting of the ordinance language (likely revising Chapter 39 of the City’s Code of Ordinances), and the passing of the ordinance revisions by the City Council. The ordinance would require participation and could include banning materials from garbage containers. Use Code Enforcement at the curb to issue citations for contamination in recycling containers and instruct collection vehicle operators to leave the recycling container unemptied if tagged for contamination. Code Enforcement Officers could check recycling carts for contamination, and tag contaminated carts. Collection personnel would be instructed to not collect from tagged carts. Ordinance revisions would be necessary to codify the procedure (i.e. modify Chapter 39). Education and outreach ahead of enforcement should be conducted to notify residents of the change in procedure.

San Antonio Enforcement

• San Antonio has 34 dedicated Solid Waste Route Inspectors (total population of 1.5 million) • From SA FY 2018 Annual Report: Achieved 36% Recycling performance rate (performance rate is determined by not only including all of the materials recycled, but also adding the correct material).

• Improved contamination rate from 26% to 20.6%. Green organics contamination went from 43% rejection rate to 22%. In 2008 an average of 1.4 tons per residence sent to landfill, now down to 1 ton. • Revenue from fines used to offset cost of redirecting waste. FY 2016: Purchase of 5 pickup trucks for new

inspectors- $105,000 • Lower contamination rates lead to more efficient recycling routes because contaminated loads don't have to be taken to landfill.

• The Solid Waste Management Department has an inspection team checking the blue bins. The team will document unacceptable items and place a hang tag on the cart, indicating that it won’t be picked up until the trash is removed. After a warning, if the inspection team finds more trash, it could result in a $25 fine.

• From the 2018 Solid Waste Annual Report: 46,924 warnings were issued, 1,730 fines issued. 1,730 x $25 = $43,250. • Improved resident knowledge of acceptable recycling materials; inspectors act as ambassadors to the

community.

Implement a Pay-as-You-Throw curbside collection system where setting out more garbage costs more, setting out less garbage costs less. In pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programs, also known as unit pricing or variable-rate pricing, residents are charged for the collection of garbage based on the amount they throw away, which more closely aligns with how other utilities are charged. There are different approaches to PAYT, including variable rate carts based on size of the cart, stickers or tags residents must purchase to place on garbage bags, or specially marked or colored bags residents must purchase in which to set out garbage. A critical factor in designing PAYT is the need to purchase additional carts ahead of normal replacement schedules. PAYT systems generally only work when there is a fee charged for services provided. Implement a voluntary technical assistance program to assist multi-family complexes in setting up on-site recycling programs. For multifamily complexes that wish to implement or improve upon recycling accessibility, the City could initiate a technical assistance program, based upon request. Targeting multifamily complexes within the technical assistance program would require that audits be performed by City staff to identify space constraints and other impediments to recycling and provide solutions to the property manager to overcome the impediments. Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance for multi-family complexes, with phased in compliance (education, then strict compliance). Mandating recycling services via ordinance requiring multifamily complexes to participate in recycling would increase recycling participation and disposal diversion in the City. The establishment of a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance (MRO) for the City would require the drafting of the ordinance, and the passing of the ordinance by the City Council. Cities in Texas who have already passed MRO’s include San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and San Marcos. San Antonio Monthly Rate Structure (Does not include Environmental Service Fee)

The City could include a requirement for a permit for haulers specifically for collecting recyclables from multi-family complexes (see Dallas details shown below), which would provide an opportunity for the City to track which complexes are complying with the ordinance, as well as tons collected from multifamily complexes.

Dallas Multi-Family Recycling Ordinance

▪ Half of Dallas residents live in multifamily housing. ▪ The City of Dallas Multifamily Recycling Ordinance requires multi-tenant property owners/managers offer access to either valet, dual stream, or single stream recycling service for their tenants. The ordinance applies to properties with 8 or more units. ▪ Ordinance will go into effect on January 1, 2020. ▪ In addition to offering access to recycling service, property owners and managers must use a permitted recycling collector for recycling collection service. (Permitted Recycling Collectors submit annual reports). Implement a voluntary technical assistance program to assist businesses in setting up on-site recycling programs. Similar to the technical assistance program for multifamily complexes described above, the City could implement a technical assistance program targeting business entities to help businesses identify and reduce unnecessary physical waste. Specifically, the program could evaluate collection and disposal of trash, recycling, organics, and disposal of regulated wastes (including chemicals and electronics). Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance for businesses, with phased in compliance (education, then strict enforcement). Mandating recycling services via ordinance requiring businesses to participate in recycling would increase recycling participation and disposal diversion in the City. The establishment of a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance (MRO) for the City would require the drafting of the ordinance, and the passing of the ordinance by the City Council.

Private Sector Partnerships The commercial sector is taking the lead on several fronts related to changing products and encouraging recycling. Corporate resources should be included as a key resource in implementing Houston’s Plan. For example, Walmart has recently announced “zero waste” initiatives and Coca-Cola has committed to collecting and recycling its packaging, as well as increasing bottles to 50% recycled plastic by 2020. Unilever also states that their goal is “to move towards a more circular economy, designing products so that more packaging either remains in loops or has the best possible opportunity to be recycled”. Furthermore, Amazon has invested $10 million in the Closed Loop Fund, intended to fund large retail and consumer goods companies in building infrastructure that will increase product and packaging recycling, with the intention of ensuring that material is returned to the manufacturing supply chain. It is also Amazon’s intention to increase the availability of curbside recycling for 3 million homes in the United States, wherein 1 million tons of recyclable material will be diverted from landfills. Building upon the circular economy initiatives described in Section XX, in May 2018, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division announced committing to the following goals for capturing, recycling, and recovering plastics: • 100% of plastics packaging is re-used, recycled, or recovered by 2040. • 100% of plastics packaging is recyclable or recoverable by 2030. • 100% of the U.S. manufacturing sites operated by ACC’s Plastics Division members will participate in Operation Clean Sweep-Blue by 2020, with all of their manufacturing sites across North America involved by 2022. In order to do this, ACC recommends moving to a more circular economy which “prioritizes the extension of product life cycles, extracting maximum value from resources in use, and then recovering materials at the end of their service life.”1 U.S. plastic resin producers partnering with the ACC plan to focus their attention on the following key areas in order to achieve the goals outlined above: • Designing new products for greater efficiency, recycling, and reuse; • Developing new technologies and systems for collecting, sorting, recycling, and recovering materials; • Making it easier for more consumers to participate in recycling and recovery programs; • Expanding the types of plastics collected and repurposed; • Aligning products with key end markets; • Expanding awareness that used plastics are valuable resources and available for next use.

Establish more informative data management systems to better track trends and provide more transparent and useful data. The City currently maintains data relating to solid waste management across multiple systems and reporting mechanisms, making it difficult to identify system-wide trends, threats and opportunities.

Implement reporting requirements to better track private sector recycling. City Code of Ordinance Chapter 38 states “solid waste operators” must have a “franchise,” but the current language is not clear if “solid waste operators” includes recyclables haulers. Chapter 38 could be revised to clarify (or add) recyclables haulers to be included in the requirement for a franchise and require annual renewals of the franchise. The language could also be revised to require that franchise holders provide the City with certain information on a quarterly basis that would at least include tons of recyclables collected and delivered to a processor within the City. The reporting could include number of customers, by type of customers (multi-family or commercial), tons collected, tons processed and marketed, and contamination rates.

Organics Approximately 35% of the total waste stream is organic material, including food waste, yard trimmings and wood. An additional 25% is paper and paper products which can also be composted. The City’s current collection program is designed to first reduce the amounts of yard waste and food waste generated. The City provides separate collection of tree waste every two months (39,157 tons in 2017 and 21,215 tons in 2018). The City provides collection of yard waste in specifically approved biodegradable bags once per week (15,412 tons in 2017 and 9,317 tons in 2018). Organics Policy Issues ▪ Biosolids have been identified as a difficult waste to manage at landfills, even though they do not take up a large amount of landfill space. This material can be composted; however, there are few compost facilities in the region that are permitted to accept this material. ▪ Adding biosolids and food residuals at composting facilities may increase the total capacity of processing facilities; however, few processors are currently authorized or willing to accept it. ▪ There are opportunities to recover more food waste to be used to feed the hungry. It requires significant coordination and there are agencies that have, as their mission, to make these efforts more productive. ▪ Houston has a number of food related industries that generate wastes that can be composted versus disposed in landfills. ▪ Opportunities exist for collection of food residuals from commercial sector; this may require new facilities or existing facilities’ permits to be upgraded. ▪ Post-consumer food residuals are often highly contaminated, especially when collected from the residential sector. Organics Policy & Program Options Continue to provide both yard waste and tree waste collection services to residents. The City currently provides once per week collection of yard waste in biodegradable plastic bags. Tree waste is collected every other month. This program is responsible for the collection of approximately half of the material the City currently diverts from area landfills. One of the challenges with this program is the amount of contamination that appears in the tree waste program specifically. Residents often place bulky waste in the tree waste piles. To address this, the City needs to address this issue in their overall public education and enforcement programs. Encourage greater recovery of acceptable food wastes for feeding low-income residents. EPA’s priorities for managing food wastes identify donations of acceptable food waste second to source reduction as a priority. There are a variety of programs throughout Houston which are designed to reduce food waste by directing acceptable food waste for feeding the hungry. The City should be more proactive in doing more to connect generators of food waste with programs such as the Houston Food Bank and others to put this waste to positive use. Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance for organics collection with phased in compliance (education followed by enforcement.) The early focus of this strategy is to enforce compliance with current ordinances related to keeping yard waste out of solid waste collection bins and following rules related to tree waste set-out. If the City were to eventually move to residential food waste collection, proper set-out of this material will have to be included in the program. Encourage diversion from the landfill of biosolids generated at City wastewater treatment plants to processing facilities. Work with organics processors to identify additional available processing capacity for biosolids among the facilities that are currently authorized to accept it. Identify feasibility of expanding capacity at those facilities if appropriate. 85

Provide greater support and expand availability of Master Composter program to build support of organics diversion and for public education. The City currently trains Master Composters through a program maintained by the State of Texas Alliance for Recycling (STAR). The City of Houston should expand its program to train Master Composters by making training sessions more accessible to the public and holding training sessions more often.

Community Level Composting: A promising trend developing in Houston and elsewhere is composting at the community level. Such programs are typically subscription based and may serve residences – both single-family and multi-family – and small businesses. These programs are typically quite small, particularly at start-up, but they are known for collecting organics with very little, if any contamination. They may process their own compost or deliver to third-party composters. They may be linked to small, community gardens who compost at the back-yard scale at the garden where compost is used. These “boutique” collection and processing operations currently fulfill an important niche in the management of organics because they are able to respond to the public demand for food residual diversion when City- wide diversion programs are not available or not feasible.

Encourage use of locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends outside City Projects. One way to encourage use of locally produced organic products outside of City projects is to include preferences for use of such products in a “Green Building Code” as addressed regarding recycling and resource recovery. This program could be phased with the phasing in of a “Green Building Code.” Lead by example by encouraging use of locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends at City projects and facilities. Institute and enforce a procurement policy favoring locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends at new and existing City projects and facilities. Coordinate with development of Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Guide for other recyclables. Increase drop-off locations for acceptance of organics including yard waste, brush and tree waste. This action relates to the proposed actions in the recycling and illegal dumping programs to increase greater accessibility of depositories for materials to be properly disposed. There are currently 6 of these facilities – another 5 would place one in each council district. Initiate Residential Food Waste Collection. Food waste could be collected from single-family residences along with green waste. Green waste is currently collected in compostable plastic bags. Comingled food waste and green waste are typically collected in carts. Introducing an additional cart in the residential collection system would be expensive. In addition, contamination is typically very high in post-consumer food waste, which increases cost and decreases the ability to process it. Most of the organics processors in the region will not accept post-consumer food waste.

Continue to monitor new technologies and processes for managing organic waste streams. There are technologies that are currently available for processing organics in a more complex manner than traditional windrow composting. These technologies have the potential to reduce more waste and different types of material more efficiently and more environmentally acceptable. However, the cost of such options is significantly more expensive than current regional practices.

On the Horizon – Edmonton Anaerobic Digestion Facility This facility, located at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre (Calgary Canada), will expand the City’s organics waste processing capacity and contribute to the goal of diverting 90% of waste from landfill. The ADF will enable the City to: Process up to 48,000 tons of organic waste per year and divert it from landfill; Create renewable energy in the form of electricity and heat; Produce high quality compost for use in agriculture and horticulture; Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and Remove odors created during the process by using bio-filters. The construction of the new ADF is now complete. The facility is currently in the commissioning phase, processing organic feed stock from municipal solid waste and generating biogas. It will be fully operational later in 2019. Source: https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/waste_drainage/anaerobic-digestion-facility.aspx

Figure 6-5 Edmonton Resource Recovery Facility

Energy and Resource Recovery Energy & Resource Recovery Policy Issues Figure 6-6 Energy recovery from waste has been Waste Management in the US demonstrated in the U.S. and other countries Composted around the world. According to the U.S. Energy 10% Information Agency, 12.8% of the MSW in the

U.S. is burned for energy recovery. Waste to Demonstrated technologies include both mass Energy burn and refuse derived fuels, which combust 13% waste for energy recovery in the form of either steam or electricity. There are no operating waste-to-energy facilities operating in Texas. Landfilled With these technologies there are significant 52% financial investments required. For example, a 2,000 ton-per-day facility could cost approximately $200 - $250 million to construct. Operating costs (including debt service) are in the range of $75 to Recycled $100 per ton, compared to current landfill tipping 25% fees in Texas which are between $25 and $30 per ton. There are also air quality issues and other environmental issues that must be addressed prior to implementation of energy recovery Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency technologies. Technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification can recover energy in a more environmentally acceptable manner. The major risk associated with these technologies is that most of these technologies are relatively new and there are operational concerns. A major concern with adoption of these technologies is the need to have a fairly homogenous waste stream sent to the facility. Energy recovery technologies must compete with other energy alternatives including relatively low-cost natural gas. Table 6-17 presents a summary of characteristics of pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion.

Table 6-17 Characteristics of Pyrolysis, Gasification &Tipping Anaerobic fees Digestion are important to consider. They Conversion typically increase as landfill capacity decreases. Pyrolysis Gasification Anaerobic Digestion Technology The difference in tipping fees regionally is correlated to landfill capacity, as the average Feedstock Plastics MSW tipping fee inOrganic Western wastes states ($35.69) with more available space for landfills (e.g., Texas, Primary End Synthetic Oil, Syngas, Electricity, Colorado, Idaho,Biogas Montana, and Electricity Nevada) is less than Product(s) Petroleum Oil Ethanol half of the average in the Northeast ($74.75). Conversion Efficiency 62 – 85% 69 – 82% Source: EPA60 – 75%

Facility Size (capacity) 10 – 30 tons per day 75 – 330 tonsHouston’s per day tipping30 – 100 fees tons are per in theday range of $25 - $30 per ton. This low rate effects the economic Product Energy Value 15,000 – 19,000 Btu/lb 11,500 – 18,800feasibility Btu/lb of 6000resource – 7000 recovery Btu/lb options. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

There are a number of private entities across the U.S. that are investing in alternative technologies. The American Chemistry Council references a report completed by Closed Loop Partners (CLP), an organization that invests in the development of a circular economy. The report concludes the following, “Our analysis indicates that these technologies could meet an addressable market with potential revenue opportunities of $120 billion in the United States and Canada alone. CLP identified 60 technology providers with significant potential for growth, along with 250 investors and strategic partners engaged with them.” Energy and Resource Recovery Program Options Promote landfill gas recovery for energy recovery. The Figure 6-7 City should use its contractual leverage whenever possible to Brightmark Plastics Pyrolysis Facility is located in Ashley, have landfills recover landfill gas for energy recovery. This Indiana The advanced plastics renewal facility, now under technology is being used in the H-GAC region and involves construction, will divert 100,000 tons of plastic waste each year capturing the gas generated from the decomposition of from landfills and incinerators and convert it into 18 million gallons of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and naphtha blend stocks and 5 million organic material in the waste and either using it to generate gallons of wax. Phase one of the plant’s construction will represent electricity on site or converting it to pipeline quality gas. a $138.3M capital investment in Steuben County, Indiana. Source: Section 6 includes a listing of landfills that are currently Brightmark Energy (2019). recovering energy from landfills. These include the three primarily MSW landfills used by the City of Houston (McCarty, Currently, Brightmark is seeking proposals from cities to locate a Blue Ridge and Atascocita). facility in their jurisdiction. Periodically evaluate resource recovery and energy-from-waste technologies to determine if it is appropriate for Houston to invest in such technologies for waste management. There are technologies currently available for converting waste to energy; however, these technologies are costly and pose certain environmental risks. New technologies such as pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion may provide the City with long-term options for significantly reducing landfill needs.

Conduct periodic industry roundtable meetings. The Houston area is a world leader in energy related businesses. Some of these businesses have a direct influence on the development of alternative waste technologies, especially related to plastic production and waste management. The SWMD should establish a business roundtable to periodically review the potential of new technologies and encourage private investment. Illegal Dumping Illegal Dumping Police and Program Options The City of Houston has hundreds of illegal dump sites located throughout the City. A number of agencies are responsible for detecting, monitoring and prosecuting illegal dumping in Houston, including the Harris County Environmental Crimes Unit, Houston Police Department (HPD), the Houston Department of Neighborhoods and SWMD. SMWD’s primary role is to collect and properly dispose of the illegally dumped material once it has been reported. Increase the number of crews and provide additional equipment for increased response to illegal dumping sites. In order to be more responsive to citizen complaints regarding illegal dump sites, the City should dedicate staff and equipment to the illegal dumping collection program. Each of the 4 districts should maintain at least two crews dedicated to illegal dump collections. Increase hours of operation at existing depositories and The MATF identified collection of illegal dump add new depositories. In order to encourage proper sites as one of its key priority issues. disposal of MSW, the City should increase the hours of operation of the existing depositories. It is recommended that Photo Source: Houston Chronicle there be a depository located in each City Council district. This would require the construction and operation of 5 additional depositories. Increase staffing for camera monitoring program – increase number of sites where cameras are located. The HPD and Harris County maintain a current program of monitoring known sites where illegal dumping is taking place. Monitoring is designed to deter individuals from illegal dumping and to assist in identifying individuals responsible for the illegal dumping. It is recommended that the number of these sites be increased. Public Education Program related to illegal dumping. Develop and implement a public information campaign designed to reduce illegal dumping as well as how to report illegal dumping activities. The campaign should utilize a range of media, including social media, news articles and public service announcements targeted to the diverse cultures and languages in Houston. Define responsibilities for illegal dumping between the Department of Neighborhoods and the HPD Differential Response Units. The Houston Police Department has Differential Response Teams who perform community policing using both traditional and non-traditional policing methods to address community crime. However, the Police Department does not accept responsibility for addressing illegal dumping using this unit. Therefore, the Department of Neighborhoods is currently taking 311 calls and addressing the issue. Improve enforcement through broader powers for Code Enforcement and Solid Waste Management staff related to illegal dumping. The Harris County environmental Crimes Unit and the Houston Police Department Environmental Enforcement Unit report illegal dumping activity of more than 5 pounds to the District Attorney. Given the limited resources available to HPD, it is advised the Code Enforcement and Solid Waste staff be given the authority to issue citations for

illegal dumping. The City should also develop a process for accelerated enforcement of illegal dumping ordinances. Often, current court cases related to illegal dumping take between 2 and 4 years to resolve. By this time, the illegal dumping is typically cleaned-up and courts often do not enforce penalties.

PART III – VISION, GOALS AND ACTION PLAN 7.0 Vision, Goals & Objectives One of the primary responsiblities of the MATF was to establish the vision, goals and objectives for the Plan. These reflect the group’s priorities for meeting the City’s long-term waste and resource management demands. The goals and objectives provide guideposts for determining if the City is on track to meet Houston’s needs.

Plan Vision The Vision of the SWMD is to provide exemplary service to the Houston community while enhancing our environment and protecting the health of Houston’s residents.

Plan Goals ▪ Achieve financial sustainability for the SWMD. ▪ Increase reuse, recycling and organics diversion and decrease environmental risks of waste disposal in landfills. Make Houston a zero-waste community. ▪ Continue to provide quality services to the residents and businesses of Houston. ▪ Ensure long-term disposal capacity and sustainable solid waste infrastructure. ▪ Provide solid waste management services in a safe, equitable, responsive, and environmentally responsible manner. Plan Objectives Objectives are means to achieve the Plan’s goals. The goals and Waste Prevention (Reduce) objectives established for the Plan are Product Design & Produce Responsibility consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “New Waste Paradigm” (Figure 7-1).” This paradigm Reuse focuses on reducing waste through waste prevention and reuse, then recycling, organics management, transformation through Recycle energy/resource recovery and finally disposal in a properly constructed and operated landfill. Conversion/Compost Figure 7-1 Waste Management Paradigm Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Transformation/ The tables presented in this section identify specific objectives Waste-to-Energy and metrics to achieve the stated goals. Goals are generally defined as an idea for the future. Objectives are measurable Landfill outcomes that are designed to achieve goals. The metrics and milestones presented in this section present specific timeframes and metrics to determine if the SWMD is on-target to succeed in addressing the MATF’s goals and objectives. Near-term generally means five years or less; mid-term is five to ten years and long-term is over 10 years.

Table 7-1 Financial Sustainabilty Goals, Objectives and Metrics Goals Objectives Metrics & Milestones Establish funding mechanisms that provide long-term financial sustainability ▪ In the near-term, establish monthly service fees to pay for all solid waste management for solid waste management needs. services. ▪ In the near-term, establish a monthly environmental fee to pay for non-residential waste management services. Achieve Secure alternative funding sources for paying for solid waste management ▪ Continue to secure grants for solid waste programs Financial strategies, including grants and ▪ Continue to establish partnerships with environmental organizations and the private sector Sustainability partnerships. to jointly fund projects. ▪ Immediately, right-size the SWMD to improve operating efficiencies through timely Provide services utilizing best equipment replacements, on-time equipment maintenance and appropriate staff sizing. management practices. ▪ Over the long-term, effectively use private sector resources to manage City-owned facilities.

Table 7-2 Assuring Long-term Disposal Goals, Objectives & Metrics Goal Objective Metrics Assure long-term disposal capacity, ▪ In the near-term, advocate for the efficient operation of regional landfills (as measured by in- maintaining a minimum of 25-years place compaction density) through contracts as a means of extending current capacity. disposal capacity for waste generated by ▪ Over the long-term, assure landfill facilities used by the City meet all state and federal City residents and businesses. regulations through local ordinances and contracts for service.

▪ Continuously, assure environmental justice is taken into consideration for landfill locations

and expansions. ▪ In the long-term, site, permit and construct a City-owned landfill. It is recognized that the Assure process requires a long lead time, therefore planning for a landfill is a near-term requirement. ▪ In the near / mid-term, determine the need for a rail-haul facility to meet the City’s long-term long-term solid waste management needs. disposal Reduce haul costs by maintaining a ▪ Continue to operate and maintain through public private / partnerships City owned transfer capacity system of transfer facilities for both MSW facilities. and recyclable materials. ▪ In the near-term, develop recyclable material transfer capabilities throughout the City. ▪ In the near / mid-term, permit and build a Northeast Transfer Station. Implement resource recovery ▪ Annually, report to the Mayor and City Council the status of resource recovery technologies technologies, including energy from and their potential application to Houston. These technologies include mass-burn waste for meeting the City’s future waste incineration, pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion. management needs when technically and ▪ In the very near-term, establish a public / private framework for monitoring technical economically feasible. advances and what the City can do to support development.

Table 7- 3 Waste Prevention, Recycling & Organics Goals, Objectives & Metrics Goal Objectives Metrics and Milestones Reduce waste from all Houston residents ▪ By 2040, reduce waste from all sectors going to regional landfills (will require cooperation and businesses, while leading by from City haulers) by 25%. example, to assist in reduction of tons-per- ▪ By 2040, reduce residential waste collections by 25%. capita disposed by 25% compared to 2020 ▪ By 2040 Collection of yard waste reduced through grass-cycling (25%). levels by 2040.

Expand and innovate recycling ▪ By 2040, achieve a residential recycling rate of 30% (includes yard waste and recyclables). opportunities to all Houston residents and ▪ In the immediate future, establish an accurate, local recycling market database and businesses to increase amounts of benchmark. materials recycled by 45% between 2020 ▪ By 2040, achieve a City-wide recycling rate of 45% (will require a local data collection effort and 2040; increase types of materials to capture all local recycling). Assumes current is 32% including C&D material. that can be recycled, and reduce Increase contamination to 20% by 2030. ▪ Continuously work to establish additional markets for recovered materials. Reuse, Enhance multi-family recycling efforts. ▪ In the near-term, establish a dedicated multi-family reduction / recycling program with Recycling & baseline survey for participation tracking. ▪ By 2025, increase the number of depositories and recycling centers for collecting materials Organics from multi-family households; increased to one depository in each Council district. Diversion ▪ Establish a mandatory multi-family recycling ordinance by the year 2025. Enhance private sector source reduction ▪ In the immediate future, establish a dedicated commercial / institutional source reduction / and recycling efforts. recycling program with baseline survey for participation tracking. ▪ By 2027, establish a mandatory universal recycling ordinance. Preserve landfill capacity and realize ▪ In the near-term, mulch or compost 100% of recovered organics (yard waste and tree waste). environmental and economic benefits by ▪ In the near-term, reduce by 30% organics collection through grass cycling and backyard reducing the disposal of organic composting (increased number of attendees at Master Composter courses). resources within regulatory and economic ▪ By 2040, recover commercial organic materials through commercial program (survey food constraints. processors & food service companies for baseline) - 25% recovery rate by 2040.

▪ In the near / mid-term, assist in the development of organics processing capacity throughout the region.

▪ In the near / mid-term, identify a candidate site for a food waste facility (similar to transfer or storage facility to serve food waste producers). ▪ Continuously, use of compost, mulch and other recovered organic resources increased throughout the region to support markets and realize environmental benefits. Increased use by City departments. ▪ Secure necessary wastewater treatment permits to allow for all of Houston’s sludge to be processed at a composting facility. Negotiate contracts with compost processors to accept biosolids instead of landfilling this waste.

Table 7-4 Service Goals, Objectives & Metrics Goal Objective Metrics & Milestones Provide efficient collection of MSW and ▪ Continuously, provide once-per-week collection of municipal solid waste from residents. resources to all Houston residents. Level of service to be commensurate with financial resources available. ▪ Immediately, establish a fleet replacement program that results in no residential collection vehicles older than seven years old. ▪ Immediately, fully staff the SWMD. ▪ Continuously, reduce transportation costs associated with the collection and hauling of Continue to wastes through the use of transfer stations. In the near-term, identify transfer options for provide quality recyclable materials. ▪ Continuously, evaluate opportunities for the collection of recyclable materials at commercial services to the and multi-family units. residents & ▪ Continuously, provide for the collection program for household hazardous materials through businesses of City facilities and point-of-sale centers. Houston Provide efficient, safe and responsive ▪ Continuously, maintain a current disaster debris management plan. services in times of heavy storms or other ▪ Continuously, maintain active contracts for both managing and collecting disaster debris in disaster events. emergency situations. ▪ Continuously, maintain available quality collection equipment for storm debris (less than seven years old for major pieces of equipment). ▪ In the near-term, implement the City’s Climate Action Plan, Emergency Management Plan and Resiliency Plan. 96

Table 7-5 Environmental & Illegal Dumping Goals, Objectives and Metrics Goal Objectives Metrics & Milestones Provide solid Reduce litter throughout the City, ▪ In the near-term, develop partnerships to discourage litter generation through joint public waste presenting a more beautiful and information campaigns. healthier Houston. ▪ In the near-term, increase the number of depositories for collection of waste so that there is management at least one facility in each council district. In addition to expanding the number of services in a Enhance efforts to reduce illegal depositories, improve the geographic distribution of environmental service centers for HHW, safe, equitable, dumping throughout the City. electronics recycling and other special household wastes. responsive, and ▪ In the near-term, add staffing and equipment dedicated to illegal dumping clean-up efforts and for homeless camp clean-up. environmentally ▪ Immediately, create opportunities for enforcement of illegal dumping for SWMD staff. responsible ▪ Immediately, establish clear lines of responsibility for future illegal dumping enforcement, manner. communications and clean-up.

8.0 Plan Recommendations & Impacts As shown in Section 6, there are a number of policy and program options available to the City to achieve the MATF goals and objectives. The next step for the City is to establish policy/program plan priorities and implement those strategies. Implementation will require an organizational structure to identify specifically who will be responsible for specific aspects of the Plan. It should be noted that in many instances, plan implementation will require a collaboration of several stakeholders, including the residents of Houston. The Plan’s implementation will also require financial resources. As has been stated in this Plan, the City’s program is severely underfunded. To achieve goals and objectives, additional funding will be necessary. Once implemented, the Plan’s outcomes will include better service to Houston residents, improvements to the local environment and a more secure solid waste infrastructure. Plan Priorities Based on an assessment of the City’s needs and program options, the following are the high priority actions for the City’s SWMD. 1. Establish a long-term financially sustainable program that includes both a monthly environmental fee and a monthly service fee. 2. Right-size the program. The City will need to continue to make investments in new equipment to replace older equipment and increase staff. 3. Assure long-term disposal capacity in the region by directly investing in a process to site, permit and construct an MSW landfill in the region. The City may operate with its own staff or operate the landfill under contract similar to the City’s transfer stations. 4. Work towards a zero-waste management system. Five specific programs are identified as priorities. a. Enhance markets for recyclable materials through cooperation with industry and the City’s economic development office. b. Focus attention on the multi-family and commercial / institutional sectors. This should begin with public education and coordination, ultimately leading to mandatory ordinances. c. Continue to provide residential recycling services, with an emphasis on reducing contamination. d. Establish an organics management program that targets the commercial sector including food processors and food service businesses. e. Mobilize the entire Houston community to understand that action is required by every household and business to reduce the cost of solid waste management and preserve critical disposal capacity. 5. Invest in a new North East transfer station to be located at the NE service center. The SWMD should also immediately fund improvements at existing transfer stations. 6. Improve illegal dumping clean-up efforts through increases in staff and equipment. Increase enforcement and penalties paid for violators as part of this process.

The policies and programs recommended in this Plan address all The challenges that face the aspects of an integrated resource recovery approach. In recent SWMD in meeting the City’s years, the SWMD has been able to address some of these issues long-term solid waste needs will but the SWMD still faces many challenges. require both a new approach to ▪ The current collection program relies too heavily on older funding and a recognition that equipment and is under-staffed. As noted in the Mayor’s managing the City’s needs will Inaugural Address, the City is making strides to replace front- cost more. line equipment. There is still a need to continuously update the City’s fleet and hire additional staff to reduce overtime costs. 98

▪ The City continues to be impacted by climate change. The increasing number of damaging storm events has required the SWMD to provide assistance in clean-up efforts and these storms negatively impact regional disposal capacity. ▪ The region has less than 30 years of remaining disposal capacity. While this may appear to suggest long-term disposal capacity, to secure future landfill capacity a timeframe of 15 years is necessary. And as landfills in the region reach capacity, the City will have fewer options, affecting both access and costs. ▪ There is increasing public pressure to be more pro-active in providing more environmentally acceptable options for managing waste and resources, including more recycling and organics management. The Plan is very pro-active in addressing current and future needs. Table 8-1 summarizes the number of new programs recommended and expansions to current programs. There 33 new programs ranging from monthly service fees to new ways to reduce waste generation identified in the Resiliency Plan. Current programs such as public information and illegal dumping clean-ups are proposed to be expanded from their current levels.

Table 8-1 Numbers of New Strategies & Program Expansions New Expansions of Program Area Total Programs Programs Financial Assurance 1 1 2

Source Reduction 2 3 5

Recycling 9 5 14

Organics 8 2 10

Collection 2 4 6

Transfer Stations 3 0 3

Energy & Resource Recovery 3 0 3

Assuring Disposal Capacity 3 0 3

Illegal Dumping 2 4 6

TOTAL 33 19 52

Climate and Resiliency Plans As stated, the City is also implementing both a Climate Action Plan and a Resiliency Plan. Both plans address MSW management. MSW recommendations from these plans are identified below. Climate Action Plan Recommendations The City is committed to achieving the Paris Accord standards for climate change. It established a working group to evaluate options for addressing greenhouse gases and programs to reduce these gases significantly by 2040. Below are

specific action items referenced in the DRAFT Climate Action Plan. It is significant that this Integrated Resource Recovery Plan addresses each of these goals. ▪ T1.2 Convert 100% of the non-emergency, light-duty municipal fleet (cars and trucks) to EV technologies by 2030. ▪ M1.1 Engage public on waste reduction solutions ▪ M1.2 Develop, implement, and promote sustainable municipal procurement strategies ▪ M1.3 Promote upstream solutions to reduce/manage disaster debris ▪ M2.1 Expand and innovate recycling opportunities to all Houston residents and businesses to increase diversion and recovery, while reducing contamination ▪ M2.2 Strengthen and support efforts to reduce food waste and create infrastructure for food organics collection and composting ▪ M2.3 Support and expand market development and diversion infrastructure ▪ M3.1 Improve efficiency of all landfills, transfer stations and waste transportation ▪ M3.2 Ensure long-term disposal capacity and solid waste infrastructure Resiliency Plan Sections of the City’s DRAFT Resiliency Plan that are included in this Plan and include the following.

▪ Sub-action 32.4: Reduce residential landfill waste ▪ Sub-action 32.1: Shift to electric vehicles and low/no emission vehicles ▪ Sub-action 38.1: Increase long-term landfill sustainability ▪ Sub-action 38.2: Increase renewable energy generated within Houston ▪ Sub-action 38.3: Advance multi-family and commercial recycling Organizational Plan The SWMD is ultimately responsible to the Mayor for implementing the City’s solid waste services. However, to implement the Plan as recommended, every aspect of the Houston community will have to participate in the implementation of the Plan. Figure 8-1 presents an organization chart that identifies the key roles of the SWMD and key stakeholders for implementation. SWMD For FY 2020, a total of 436.9 FTE positions were budgeted. The Recycling Revenue Fund has a total of 3 authorized positions. The organization chart defines a distribution of staff for the SWMD. Specific responsibilities for each section of the SWMD are presented in Appendix D. The SWMD has direct responsibilities for the collection, processing, recycling and disposal of residential waste in the City. It also has policy making authority related to solid waste management. Per the City’s Code, the SWMD are responsible for the following. ▪ Supervise and be responsible for the collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste. ▪ Carry out the policies of the Mayor and City Council in the overall planning effort to develop a reliable and efficient method for solid waste disposal. ▪ Administer and enforce this chapter and related laws. ▪ Have such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned by the Mayor and City Council.

100

▪ (Ord. No. 93-514, § 62, 5-5-93; Ord. No. 2015-1032, § 2, 10-21-2015, eff. 1-1-2016) The SWMD is currently comprised of three primary functions: Department Management, Maintenance Division and two Operations Divisions. Because of the significace of future planning, program management and public outreach and education, it is proposed a fourth primary functional division be established – Planning and Outreach Division.

One of the primary recommendations of the Plan is to Right-Size the organization. To accomplish this, the City will need to continuously work to add staff to improve reliability and to provide the additional services that are outlined in the Plan. Without the addition of resources, including staff and equipment, the City will have to actually cut back on the level of services provided.

Key Stakeholders ▪ Citizens of Houston: The citizens of Houston require a SWMD Houston residents need to understand that that can provide reliable services to manage municipal solid they are key stakeholders in the success of waste in order to maintain the health and environment of the the Plan. By actively taking steps to community. Houston residents also have a responsibility to reduce waste, follow ordinances and actively seek ways to reduce waste generation, reduce the become aware of ways to improve amounts of contamination placed in recycling carts and adhere recycling, Houston residents can improve to SWMD collection ordinances. the local environment and reduce the ▪ Mayor & Council: The executive and the legislative branches cost of solid waste management which is of the City direct the SWMD as to the services it provides and its paid for by their tax dollars. annual budget. The Director of the SWMD reports to the Mayor. Other City Departments ▪ Fleet Maintenance: The SWMD relies on hundreds of pieces of equipment to provide their services reliably and efficiently. The Fleet Maintenance Department has the responsibility to assist in the procurement of vehicles and maintain them on a regular basis. ▪ Procurement: Each year, the SWMD procures a number of services and materials from private vendors. The Procurement Department has the responsibility to assist the SWMD procure these services including operation of the transfer stations, supplemental collection services and landfill disposal. ▪ Budget & Finance: Assists the SWMD in preparing annual budgets. This department will have a critical role to play in establishing an Enterprise Fund if this recommendation is adopted by the City Council. ▪ Emergency Management: The SWMD is a key player in responding to emergency events such as floods and hurricanes. The SWMD works closely with Emergency Management to respond quickly to these events. ▪ Office of Sustainability: Many of the priorities of the Office of Sustainability and the SWMD are aligned – specifically related to the implementation of the Climate Action Plan. SWMD should work closely in identifying funding sources for programs that are in both this Plan and the Climate Action Plan.

101

Figure 8-1

102

▪ HPD & Code Enforcement & Department of Neighborhoods: Organizational Issues and Illegal Dumping These agencies have responsibilities to One of the findings of the planning effort is the need for a significant identify illegal dump sites and to enforce restructuring of illegal dumping enforcement responsibilities and City ordinances related to illegal accountability. It would be useful to bring all parties together to attempt dumping. to more clearly define roles, responsibilities and budgets for identifying ▪ Office of Economic Development: illegal dump sites; enforcing local codes and ordinances; and Responsible for coordinating with the collection of waste found at illegal dump sites. The one clear SWMD in efforts to attract new markets responsibility is that the SWMD has the responsibility to collect waste for recyclable materials and other waste at these sites once they have been reported. management facilities that are consistent with the Plan’s goals and objectives. Other Governmental Entities

▪ Texas Commission on Environment Quality: TCEQ is responsible for permitting MSW facilities in Texas. TCEQ also provides regional grant funds which are distributed in the Houston area through H-GAC. TCEQ also maintains an annual database on landfill capacity. ▪ H-GAC: The H-GAC has regional solid waste planning responsibilities. The H- GAC is also the agency that is responsible for distributing state grants for solid waste and recycling programs. In the past, Houston has been successful in securing grant funds from H-GAC. ▪ Harris County: The County has responsibilities related to illegal dumping enforcement.

▪ Other County governments. County governments have the authority to establish land use ordinances related to solid waste facilities. Brazoria, Fort Bend, Chambers and Waller Counties have established such ordinances and any future MSW facilities must address these regulations. Environmental & Community Groups such as Keep Houston Beautiful are able to assist in efforts to increase waste minimization, recycling, organics management and eliminate illegal dumping in the City.

Page | 103

Private Businesses There are a number of areas where the private sector can assist in achieving City solid waste management goals. It is in Resource Recovery Implementation Committee businesses’ best interest to have successful waste management (RRIC) strategies since they are responsible for 85% of the City’s waste It has been extremely valuable to have the MATF generation. This is also the sector that is responsible for assist in the development of the Plan. Members manufacturing and selling products that become waste. Business organizations such as the Greater Houston provided unique insights into community needs and Partnership, the American Chemistry Council and others should information on the status of the solid waste, recycling be long-term partners in implementing the Plan. and organics industries. It is recommended that once the Plan is approved by the City Council, a Resource The SWMD Contractors Recovery Implementation Committee be established. ▪ Republic – responsible for management and The RRIC should be comprised in a manner similar to operations at the City’s three transfer stations. Also, the MATF; however, representatives from certain they own and operate the McCarty Road Landfill and industries should acknowledge when potential the Blue Ridge Landfill which are used by the City for conflicts of interest arise related to specific MSW disposal. recommendations. The RRIC would have the ▪ Waste Management – owner and operator of the responsibility to accomplish the following. Atascocita landfill and C&D landfills the City uses. The ▪ Provide further insight relative to the actual City has contracts to use these landfills. implementation of programs and policies. ▪ FCC – owner and operator of the FCC Material ▪ Provide additional resources needed to gain Recovery Facility. The City has a long-term contract public insight related to program implementation. with FCC to accept the City’s single stream recyclable ▪ Report to City Council on the progress of the materials. The facility will be turned over to the City in Plan’s implementation. 2021. FCC also hauls biosolids from Houston’s wastewater treatment facilities. ▪ Other contractors include Texas Pride Disposal which is providing supplemental recycling collection services. Financial Plan Three of the main objectives of the Plan were to accomplish the following, which will have a significant impact on the SWMD’s future funding:

▪ Right-sizing the SWMD’s services requiring a greater number of vehicles and crews to provide reliable and efficient collection of waste; ▪ The need to improve existing facilities and build new facilities to meet the needs of a growing population; and ▪ A program that is financially sustainable through an enterprise fund supported by a monthly fee and an environmental fee. In addition to these actions, the community’s demand for a more environmentally sustainable solid waste program will require funding. This includes funding the following:

▪ A more aggressive public education/information program; ▪ Greater efforts to recover resources through recycling and organics management; and ▪ A more aggressive illegal dumping enforcement and collection effort. The programs and policies identified in this section of the Plan, will require funding if they are to be successful. It should be noted that many of the “high fiscal impact” items will be implemented over a long-period of time and may require bond funding. Page | 104

There are revenue streams that should be incorporated into the Enterprise Fund in addition to both monthly service fees and an environmental fee. These revenues streams include the following:

▪ Grants provided to the SWMD for programs from outside entities; ▪ Revenues from the sale of recycled materials per FCC contract; ▪ Royalty payments from the City’s transfer stations; ▪ Potential tipping fees or royalties from a City-owned landfill; and ▪ City’s newly adopted cart lease program. As the City begins to implement specific strategies for each of these programs, a more defined budget can be calculated. To review how the above programs and policies might impact the City’s budget, the Project Team evaluated the costs for other mature programs and the fees that they are charging for service. In Texas, monthly fees vary depending on the level of services provided and if there are opportunities to subsidize program costs through landfill tipping fees or royalties on City-owned facilities. A review of other cities shows the range for monthly service fees is between $14.94 per month to $42.85 per month. Monthly Environmental Fees range are $0.50 to $8.95 per month. Monthly Environmental Fee It is recommended as a first step in implementing the Plan, that a monthly environmental fee be established. The fee would be used to fund the following programs. • Illegal Dumping and Litter Control • Neighborhood Drop-off Expansion (new facilities and longer hours) • Homeless Encampment Clean-up • Inspections and Enforcement • Container Lease and Management • Keep Houston Beautiful • Long-term Disposal • Equipment Readiness / PSHS • Long-term Disposal The estimated monthly Environmental Fee will apply to all Houston households and businesses. The projected fee, and total revenue generation is shown in Table 8-2 Based on the assumptions presented in this table, approximately $43.9 million could be raised. Table 8-2 presents the recommended fee structure for various segments of the community. Table 8-3 provides a summary of the programs that would be funded through the monthly environmental fee as well as the amount of funding each program would receive from the fee.

Table 8-2 Proposed Monthly Fee by Service Segment Segment Total Annual Fee Monthly Fee Units Generation (million) Direct Service Single Family $5.61 390,000 $26.2 Multi-family $2.13 474,457 $12.0 Non-service single family $2.13 87,483 $2.2

Page | 105

Sponsorships $2.13 49,000 $1.2 Business $1.86 100,000 $2.2

Total $43.9

Table 8-3 Programs and Revenues funded from Monthly Environmental Fee Program Direct Service (million) Illegal Dumping & Litter $8.0 Neighborhood Drop-off Expansion (new facilities and longer hours) $3.2 Homeless Encampment Clean-up $3.5 Inspections/Enforcement $4.8 Container Lease & Management $5.3 Keep HoustonBeautiful $1.6 Long-term Disposal $1.8 Equipment Readiness / PSHS $15.6 Total Annual Generation $43.9

To establish both the monthly fee and the enterprise fund, the following steps will be required.

▪ A detailed capital investment plan will have to be prepared. ▪ An assessment of the impacts of projected transfer station and disposal costs will have to be determined. ▪ A detailed budget for specific program implementation must be developed. ▪ Modification for any policies which might impact the number of households impacted by the fee (specifically adjustments for low-income households). ▪ The policy related to sponsorship households will have to be determined. ▪ Establish protocols for collecting fees, most likely through the water department. ▪ Determination of fund reserve balance requirements must be finalized. To establish the Enterprise Fund, the City will need to transfer assets from the General Fund to the newly created Enterprise Fund. These assets include the collection fleet, transfer stations, depositories and service centers. The Enterprise Fund could issue bonds to pay for the transfer of these assets. It is possible also to phase-in the proposed fees over a period of years. Monthly Service Fee As the program evolves, it is recommended that a monthly service fee be implemented. The Monthly Service Fee would be applied to residents who receive collection services from the City. This type of fee is similar to the fee that residents Page | 106 pay for water and wastewater service on a monthly basis. Table 8-4 presents recommendations for a monthly service fee to be charged to residents and businesses across the City. Section 6 of this Plan provides background on the estimated funding requirements for the fee. Table 8-2 presents preliminary calculations for a fee. The actual fee established will require a careful evaluation of the SWMD’s long-term capital plan and which programs of the Plan are adopted. The MATF did express concern for the impact that the monthly service fee would have on low-income residents. It is proposed that a program similar to Houston W.A.T.E.R. Program, which provides assistance to low-income individuals be established, or the existing program be supplemented to provide assistance with payment of the solid waste monthly fee.

Table 8-4 Estimated Monthly Residential User Fee Inflation FY 2020 Adjustment FY 2021

Total Costs $ 111,449,028 $ 114,728,713 Households 396,730 1.28% 4 401,808 Estimated Cost/HH/Month $ 23.41 $ 23.79 1. Per Table 7-3, Capital Needs - Vehicles 2. Per Table 7-4, Capital Needs – Other 3. Per Table 7-5, Other Costs 4. Household annual growth rate per Waste Generation Forecast

Impact on the Waste Stream The Plan is intended to work towards zero waste. While zero waste is currently not attainable on a City-wide basis, the City’s program is intended to make strides to reducing waste through public education, recycling services and ultimately mandatory ordinances. The programs identified in this Plan will also reduce the toxicity of the waste stream through increased collection opportunities for HHW and public education strategies. Reduction in waste quantities requiring disposal will have the following impacts.

▪ Waste reduction will reduce the amounts of waste that has to be disposed at either a transfer station or landfill. These contracts are on a per-ton basis. Therefore, there is a one-for-one ratio of waste reduction and costs for disposal. ▪ The impacts on fleet are more difficult to determine, however. A reduced quantity of waste will allow trucks to collect more homes per route. Yet a 10% reduction in waste generation does not necessarily equate to a 10% reduction in

Page | 107

fleet needs. Vehicle routing has to take into consideration travel times to facilities, weekly peak quantities, and other factors. If enough reductions in waste generation can be achieved, the number of vehicles could be reduced. ▪ Waste reduction will extend the duration of time before additional landfill capacity will be needed. ▪ Waste reduction will reduce the generation of greenhouse gases. In forecasting future waste generation and recovery rates, there are a number of variables that could impact future needs. These variables include the following: ▪ Changes in population and economic activity; ▪ Changes in the types of materials that are used for material packaging; ▪ Changes in material markets; ▪ Changes in technologies associated with waste collection, disposal, processing and recycling; and ▪ Future storm events. Residential Waste Reductions To understand future residential solid waste needs, the Project Team evaluated current waste generation rates for the City’s residential sector and applied those rates to future increases in households served. This “base case” assumes no change in the disposal rate but does take into account growth in the number of households served. Based on a review of the City’s program, a residential recycling rate of 15-20% is achieved. This includes both residential recycling, recovery of organics in the form of yard waste and tree waste and materials recovered at depositories and recycling centers. This base case scenario also assumes an average disposal rate of 1,170 pounds per capita per-year. Table 8-5 presents a range of potential reductions that could be achieved in Houston with the residential programs later in this section. It is anticipated that the reductions would be achieved over time. The results of these reductions are presented in Figure 8-2. Figure 8-3 presents the cumulative effect for the planning period 2020 -2040. Assuming no change in the current program, the amount of waste projected to require disposal over the planning period is 16.7 million tons. If the City were to achieve a 45% reduction by 2040, the amount of waste requiring disposal would be 12.7 million tons; a 4 million ton reduction would be achieved over the planning period. The reductions can be achieved if the City invests the resources to implement the necessary programs. They have been achieved in other communities in Texas which have dedicated substantially more to source reduction and recovery programs. The data in Tables 8-5 as well as Figures 8-4 and 8-5 illustrate that the City can make significant reductions in the amounts of waste generated, but also indicates that even with significant reductions, there will be a continued need for landfill disposal to meet the City’s needs. Table 8-6 and 8-7 present a preliminary “menu” of programs required to achieve low, medium, and high reductions and recover rates. Descriptions of these policies and programs are in Section 6, as well as the tables at the end of this Section. The menu is intended to illustrate that it will require a combination of programs to achieve waste reduction and recycling goals. As the City implements the Plan, it will evaluate the current needs and identify which strategies best meet waste reduction and recovery goals, while also staying within budget. Obviously, this presents conceptual program results. Actual reductions and diversions will depend on the resources dedicated to these strategies and the level of local participation. Table 8-5 Range of Waste Reductions in Residential Waste Stream Short-term Mid-term Long-term Scenario (2020-2025) 2025-2030 2030-2040 Base Case 15% 15% 15 % Low 20% 25% 30% Medium 22% 30% 40% High 25% 35% 45%

Page | 108

Table 8-6 Residential Waste Minimization and Recycling Programs Actions Low Medium High Minimization / Recovery Rates 20-30% 22-40% 25-40% Source Reduction Public Information (SR1) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Private Sector Collaboration (SR2) ⚫ ⚫ City Internal Program (SR3) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ City Procurement (SR4) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Pay as You Throw Rates (SR-5) ⚫ Recycling Recycling Collection (R-1) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Alternative Markets (R-2) ⚫ ⚫ Residential Sector Education & Enforcement (R-3) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Increased Depositories (R-4) ⚫ ⚫ Environmental Education (R-5) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ More Drop-off Locations (R-6) ⚫ ⚫ Increased HHW Collection (R-7) ⚫ ⚫ Expand material recovery (R-11) ⚫ ⚫ Data Collection (R-14) ⚫ ⚫ Data Trends (R-15) ⚫ ⚫ Organics Collection of Organics (O-1) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Brush Collection (O-2) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Food Waste Recovery for Low-income (0-3) ⚫ ⚫ Develop capacity (O-4) ⚫ Mandatory participation (O-5) ⚫ Biosolids Composting (O-6) ⚫ Compost Market Development (O-7) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Grass clipping enforcement (O-8) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Expand Master Composter Program (0-9) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Lead by Example (0-10) ⚫ ⚫ Increase drop-off locations (O-11) ⚫ ⚫ Food waste collection (O-12) ⚫

Page | 109

Residential Waste Disposal Quantities - Reduction Scenarios Figure 8-4 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000

Tons per Year per Tons 300,000 200,000 100,000 - 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Base Case 30% Reduction 40% Reduction 45% Reduction

Cumulative Residential Waste Disposal (2020-2040 million tons) Figure 8-5

14 13 12

BASE CASE 30% REDUCTION RATE 40% REDUCTION RATE 45% REDUCTION RATE

Page | 110

City-wide Reductions Currently, the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial sectors generate a combined 4.2 million tons per year. By the year 2040, the estimated quantities of waste requiring disposal will reach 5.4 million tons due to increases in population and economic activity. Based on data collected as part of the Waste Generation Analysis, it was also determined that the City is now diverting 2.0 million tons which is expected to increase to 2.6 million tons in 2040. The 2040 projection assumes no major change in recycling policies or practices by the commercial sector. These diversions are due in large part to a significant quantity of construction / demolition material being diverted (approximately 1.5 million tons in 2019). Other significant reductions in landfill needs are occurring in the recovery of organics and recyclable materials. Houston’s current 4.2 million tons of waste represents 57% of the total amount of waste generated in the H-GAC region. A major reduction in Houston’s waste generation can have a significant impact on extending current landfill capacity. This will require a City-wide effort to not only reduce the amounts of waste generated by the commercial sector, but to convince manufacturers and retailers to design products in a manner that results in less waste generation and greater recovery through recycling. Figure 8-4 presents projected waste disposal needs; Figure 8-5 presents cumulative waste disposal under these scenarios. Even with the 30% reduction rate, the City’s total waste disposal needs decrease from a base case of 102 million tons over the planning period to 83 million tons, a 19 million ton decrease. With the highest waste reduction scenario (45%), the City disposal needs drop to 77 million tons over the planning period, a 25 million ton decrease. The H-GAC region disposes approximately 7 million tons per year. A 25 million ton decrease in waste disposal needs could extend landfill capacity by approximately 3 to 4 years. To achieve more success in extending capacity, the City of Houston should, to the extent practical, work on a regional basis with its partners in the H-GAC region to adopt many of its strategies to reduce disposal needs.

Page | 111

Table 8-7 Residential, Commercial & Institutional Waste Minimization and Recycling Programs Actions Low Medium High Minimization / Recovery Rates 20-30% 22-40% 25-40% Source Reduction Public Information (SR1) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Private Sector Collaboration (SR2) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ City Internal Program (SR3) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ City Procurement (SR4) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Pay as You Throw Rates (SR-5) ⚫ Recycling Recycling Collection (R-1) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Alternative Markets (R-2) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Residential Sector Education & Enforcement (R-3) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Increased Depositories (R-4) ⚫ ⚫ Environmental Education (R-5) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ More Drop-off Locations (R-6) ⚫ ⚫ Increased HHW Collection (R-7) ⚫ ⚫ Mandatory Multi-family Program (R-8) ⚫ ⚫ Mandatory Business Recycling Program (R-9) ⚫ Green Building Code (R-10) ⚫ Expand material recovery (R-11) ⚫ ⚫ Technical Assistance – Multi-family (R-12) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Technical Assistance – Businesses (R-13) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Data Collection (R-14) ⚫ ⚫ Data Trends (R-15) ⚫ ⚫ Organics Collection of Organics (O-1) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Brush Collection (O-2) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Food Waste Recovery for Low-income (0-3) ⚫ ⚫ Develop capacity (O-4) ⚫ Mandatory participation (O-5) ⚫ Biosolids Composting (O-6) ⚫ Compost Market Development (O-7) ⚫ ⚫ Grass clipping enforcement (O-8) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Expand Master Composter Program (0-9) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Lead by Example (0-10) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Increase drop-off locations (O-11) ⚫ ⚫ Food waste collection (O-12) ⚫

Page | 112

Total Waste Disposal Quantities - Reduction Scenarios Figure 8-6 6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

Tons per Year per Tons 2,000,000

1,000,000

- 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Base Case 30% Reduction 40% Reduction 45% Reduction

Cumulative Total Waste Disposal (2020 -2040 million tons) Figure 8-7

101

85 80 77

BASE CASE 30% REDUCTION RATE 40% REDUCTION RATE 45% REDUCTION RATE

Page | 113

Accountability Plan Program Metrics Through the planning process, the Project Team and the MATF identified a number of program goals and objectives. It is critical that as the City adopts the recommendations of the Plan, that periodic reporting back to City Council and citizens be made as to the progress toward accomplishing these goals and objectives. In order to do this, a number of program metrics are recommended. Some of the metrics presented below can be obtained from existing data; some of the data will require the City to solve issues with its current data management program; and some of the data will require A periodic sampling and surveying of both the residential and commercial sectors. Table 8-8 presents a summary of key metrics to follow as the City implements this Plan.

Table 8-8 Key Program Metrics Short-term Mid-term Long-term Program Metric Current Objective Objective Objective (1-5 years) (5-10 years) (10-20) Residential Waste Source Generation 8.9 7.5 6.0 5.0 Reduction (lbs./hh/day) Source Regional disposal rate 7.1 6.0 5.0 4.5 Reduction (lbs./capita/day) Residential Recovery Recycling 7% 15% 25% 30% Rate Recovery of yard waste and brush for Organics 7% 10% 15% 15% compost or mulch recovery rate Fleet Age (average Collection 7 5 4 3.5 age of fleet) Collection Missed Collections Unknown 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 Availability of transfer Transfer Stations stations within 20 min 20 20 20 20 of collection routes Available capacity over Disposal 30 25 25 25 25 years for MSW Control over future Landfill Disposal disposal capacity for Minimal Site Ownership Permit Ownership City needs Landfills in compliance Disposal with TCEQ and other Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant environmental regs. Page | 114

Action Plan The following Action Plan presents recommendations for achieving the goals and objectives established by the MATF. The Plan presents specific programs and policies for addressing the following:

▪ Financial Assurance ▪ Collection ▪ Waste Minimization ▪ Transfer Stations ▪ Recycling ▪ Disposal Capacity ▪ Organics Management ▪ Illegal Dumping Several new initiatives are identified in this Plan. Some of these action items, such as the development of a new Northeast Transfer Station and the managed competition program have been recently initiated and are in the very early stages of development. These new initiatives are critical to the SWMD’s ability to achieve the goals and objectives established by the MATF. With these new responsibilities, it is critical that the Council fund the programs and provide additional staff. Without such additional resources, it will not be possible to effectively implement a number of the new initiatives or program expansions. The programs and policies identified below have been presented to the MATF along with an analysis of the potential impacts these policies and programs will have on the waste stream, their technical feasibility and potential cost impacts. The following tables provide a summary of these issues and the following figures provide an implementation chart which highlights when programs and policies should be implemented. The timetable for implementing these programs and policies is affected by the level of staff resources available to plan and manage these programs. The Strategic Analysis Report prepared for this Plan provides greater detail on the implementation steps and impacts associated with both policies and programs. Short-term actions are those that need to be implemented in years 1-5; Mid-term are years 5-10; and Long-term are years 10-20.

Page | 115

Financial Sustainability Action Plan Recommendations

Table 8-9 Financial Sustainability Program Recommendations Financial Impact on Program Financial Climate Resiliency Program Definition Priority Timeframe Waste Major Issues Status Impacts Action Plan Plan Stream Enterprise Establish an Enterprise Fund and High New Short-term Minimal to High M3.2 38.2 Provides SWMD with Fund and pay for the program with a Monthly Medium due critical long-term Monthly Fees Residential Fee and a Monthly to Pay as You funding at levels which (FA1) Environmental Fee Throw Rates provide more system if adopted reliability. Managed Evaluate the results of the High Existing Short-term Minimal Unknown Contract currently Competition Managed Competition Assessment underway to evaluate (FA2) and Recommendations SWMD and managed competition. Continue to Continue to seek and secure grants Medium Existing Short-term Medium Revenue M3.2 38.2 The SWMD has been Secure Grants for programs through (ongoing) Generating successful in leveraging (FA3) H-GAC and other organizations. its program with financial grants in the past.

Page | 116

Table 8-10 Waste Minimization Program Recommendations Waste Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Minimization Status Waste Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Program Stream Public Expand public information High Expansion Short-term Medium Medium M1.1 and 38.1 Improved public Information programs (ongoing) M2.3 information. Education is (SR1) needed across all aspects of the SWMD Program. Private Sector Collaborate with the private sector High New Short-term Low - Medium Minimal 38.1 The private sector is Collaboration to reduce packaging and the use of (ongoing) primarily responsible for (SR2) non-recyclable materials much of waste generated. Improved packaging and product design can significantly reduce waste. City Internal Expand the City guidelines on High Expansion Short-term Low Minimal M1.2 38.1 City needs to demonstrate Program (SR3) management of its resources (ongoing leadership in the areas of through source reduction, reuse, waste minimization and recycling efforts for all City recycling. agencies and offices City Expand the City purchasing / Low Expansion Short-term Low Minimal M1.2 38.1 City needs to demonstrate Procurement procurement guidelines to expand (ongoing) leadership in areas of (SR4) on source reduction, reuse for City waste minimization and service and product providers recycling. Pay as You Implement a Pay-as-You-Throw Low New Short-term Low to High 32.4 This will allow garbage Throw Rates curbside collection system where Medium collection to more closely (SR-5) setting out more garbage costs align with other utilities more, setting out less garbage where users pay based on costs less usage.

Page | 117

Table 8-11 Recycling Program Recommendations Recycling Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status / Program Waste Impacts Action Plan Issues Status Stream Plan Recycling Continue to provide every High Existing Short-term Low – High M2.3 32.4 The City currently provides once Collection (R-1) two week collection of (ongoing) Medium every two week collection of recyclable materials recyclable materials. In the future evaluate going to once per week and adding or reducing materials as markets change. Alternative Develop alternative markets High New Mid-term Medium Medium 38 To expand recycling in the City, Markets for recyclable materials (ongoing) markets for materials need to (R-2) improve. The City can assist through its economic development programs. Residential Adopt recycling ordinance to High New Short-term Low – Medium M2.1 32.4 Current contamination rates for Sector deal with contamination (ongoing) Medium residential recycling are 30%- Education & including public information 40%. This creates issues for Enforcement and enforcement collection and processing of (R-3) recyclable materials. May have severe consequences if not addressed. Increased Add more depositories and High Expansion Short-term Low Medium M2.1 32.4 Increase the number of Depositories recycling centers throughout to Mid-term depositories so there is one per (R-4) Houston Council district. For increasing recycling and reducing illegal dumping. Evaluate hours of operation as well. Environmental Include more information High Expansion Short-term Low Low Implementation can take place Education regarding environmental (ongoing) as part of overall education (R-5) impacts in City education program. materials (e.g. upstream decisions for consumers) More Drop-off Add more drop off locations High Expansion Short-term Low Medium M2.1 32.4 The goal of the action item is to Locations (R-6) for recyclables, chemicals / Mid-term place a depository location in and electronics every council district. Requires 5 new depositories.

Page | 118

Table 8-11 Recycling Program Recommendations Recycling Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status / Program Waste Impacts Action Plan Issues Status Stream Plan Increased HHW Add more collection events Medium Expansion Short-term Low Medium 32.4 City provides these services Collection (R-7) for household hazardous currently. MATF recommends wastes additional collection events. Mandatory Adopt a mandatory recycling Medium New Mid-term High Low M2.1 38.3 Following education effort, adopt Multi-family ordinance for multifamily ordinance requiring owners of Program (R-8) housing complexes with multi-family housing to provide phased approach (education recycling opportunities to then enforcement) residents. Mandatory Adopt a mandatory recycling Medium New Mid-term High Low* M2.1 38.3 Following education effort, adopt Business ordinance for businesses ordinance requiring business Recycling and institutions with phased owners to provide recycling Program (R-9) approach (education then opportunities to residents. enforcement) Green Building Implement a ‘green building Low New Mid-term High Medium M2.1 32.4 A Green Building Code is Code (R-10) code” to require source designed to require waste reduction, reuse and minimization and recycling by recycling initiates, including the commercial sector and can C&D for new construction or include mandatory recycling in renovation projects. construction and day-to-day business practices. Expand Expand types of materials Low Expansion Mid-term Low Low M2.2 32.4 City to evaluate marketability of material collected and reused in city additional materials for collection recovery (R-11) operated facilities; reuse of and the potential of adding materials beyond current materials to either the curbside building materials, program or depositories. electronics and chemicals Technical Implement a voluntary Low New Short-term Low Low M1.1 32.4 City to provide technical Assistance – technical assistance assistance to multi-family Multi-family program to assist multi- building owners and residents (R-12) family complexes in setting on how to reduce waste; up on-site recycling availability of city depositories; programs. and how to implement recycling programs. Technical Implement a voluntary Low New Short-term Low Low M1.1 32.4 City to provide technical Assistance – technical assistance assistance to businesses on Businesses program to assist business how to establish recycling Page | 119

Table 8-11 Recycling Program Recommendations Recycling Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status / Program Waste Impacts Action Plan Issues Status Stream Plan (R-13) setting up reuse and programs. Coordination with recycling programs commercial sector is important. Data Collection Implement reporting Low New Short-term Low Low M3.2 32.4 Work with private haulers to (R-14) requirements to better track collect data related to waste private sector recycling generation and recycling patterns in City to evaluate where future focus should be directed. Data Trends Establish a more informative High New Short-term Low Low M3.2 32.4 Develop internal data (R-15) data management system to management system to better better track trends and track City’s performance in provide more transparent residential waste reduction and and useful data recycling efforts.

Page | 120

Table 8-12 Organics Program Recommendations Organics Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status Waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Collection of Continue collection of High Existing Short-term Low to Medium Medium 32.4 City currently provides this Organics separate yard waste on a (ongoing) service. (O-1) weekly basis Brush Continue separate High Existing Short-term Low Medium 32.4 City currently provides this Collection collection of brush (ongoing) service. It May need (O-2) material every other enforcement related to non- month brush material collected on brush only days. Food Waste In coordination with local High New Short-term Low Low M2.2 SWMD to work in conjunction Recovery for health department with local relief organizations Low-income encourage greater food and health department to (0-3) recovery to feed the develop guidelines that would hungry promote greater food donations from commercial restaurants. Develop Encourage development High New Short-term to High Medium M2.2 38.4 This will require coordination capacity (O-4) of additional organics Mid-term between food waste processing capacity generators, City and private within the City for a compost firms. May require broader range of food City to invest in some transfer residuals, and biosolids infrastructure or assist in selecting sites for food waste compost capacity. Mandatory Adopt a mandatory High New Mid-term Medium High M2.2 32.4 This is the mandatory participation recycling ordinance for residential collection of (O-5) organics collection, with organics, including food phased in compliance waste, yard waste and brush. (education, then strict compliance) Biosolids Encourage diversion from Medium New Short-term Low Low 38.1 Biosolid (sludge) can be Composting the landfill of biosolids composted but not all (O-6) generated at City composting facilities are able wastewater treatment to accept this material. City to plants to processing coordinate efforts between facilities treatment plants and compost facilities.

Page | 121

Table 8-12 Organics Program Recommendations Organics Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status Waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Compost Encourage use of locally Medium New Short-term Low Low M1.2 32.4 City to encourage use of Market produced compost, mulch compost and mulch in Development and soil blends outside Houston area. Market (O-7) City projects development should lead to more capacity. Grass clipping Enforce current Medium New Short to Low Low 38.1 In order to reduce quantities enforcement ordinance prohibiting Mid-term of waste going to landfill, (O-8) placement of grass enforce yard waste ban in clippings in City collection trash carts. carts Expand Master Provide greater support Medium Expansion Short-term Low Low M1.1 32.4 This should be tied to a Composter and expand availability of comprehensive public Program (0-9) Master Composter information campaign. Program to build support of organics diversion and for public education Lead by Lead by example by Medium New Short-term Low Low M1.2 38 The City has the potential to Example (0-10) encouraging the use of be a significant market for locally produced compost and mulch through compost, mulch and soil parks projects, transportation blends at City projects projects and landscaping and facilities throughout the City. Increase drop- Increase the number and Low Expansion Short to Mid- Low Medium M2.1 32.4 For brush, this is low priority, off locations availability of manned Term but for recycling and illegal (O-11) brush/tree waste drop-off dumping, it is high priority. locations Food waste Collect residential food Low New Mid-term Low High M2.2 32.4 Separate collection of food collection (O- residuals with yard waste waste at the residential sector 12) and address appropriate will require increased processing capacity – collection service, contracts requiring a third cart for processing and enhanced public information program.

Page | 122

Figure 8-12 – Organics Program Implementation Schedule

Organics Program 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Collection of Organics (O-1) Brush Collection (O-2) Biosolids Composting (O-3) Expand Master Composter Program (0-4) Element of expanded public information program Support Efforts Related to Food Waste Reuse (0-5) Lead by Example By Using Compost in City Projects (0- 6) Encourage Use of Compost outside City Projects (0-7) Encourage Development of Additional Capacity (O-8) Enforce Current Ordinance on Grass Clippings (0-9) Tied to Recycing Enforcement Program Increase Number of Depositories for Organics (0-10) Refer to R-4 Collect Residential Food Watse in Third Cart (0-11) Monitor New Organics Processing Technology (0-12) Include as a Task Force of Implementation Committee

Page | 123

Table 8-13 Collection Program Recommendations Collection Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status Waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Right-size Right-size the collection High Expansion Short-term Low High NA NA In order to provide more reliable collection program by adding routes service, the City needs to modify (C-1) and periodically its routes in order to address evaluating program issues such as increased housing density, traffic and other factors. Replace older Replace older vehicles on High Expansion Short-term Low High NA NA Goal is to have fleet with trucks no vehicles (C-2) a scheduled basis. Will older than 7 years. This will require near-term reduce maintenance costs and accelerated replacement increase system reliability. program Reduces reserve requirements. Enhance Enhance periodic High Expansion Short-term Low Medium NA NA With the replacement of older period maintenance of vehicles trucks, maintenance can focus maintenance to improve reliability more attention on maintaining (C-3) active maintenance program for fleet to reduce downtimes. May require additional fleet staffing. Implement Implement data High Expansion Short-term Low Low NA NA Management of the collection data management program for program will require ongoing Management collection fleet and program of monitoring system (C-4) provide management performance. City has system in- support to evaluate data place; however, it requires for more efficient routing attention by vendor to make it and accountability more effective. Slow-Down to Enforce recently adopted Medium New Short-term Low Low NA NA Newly adopted state law treats Get Around Slow-Down to Get solid waste collection crews in the (C-5) Around Law same manner as first responders and construction workers with regard to traffic safety rules.

Page | 124

Table 8-13 Collection Program Recommendations Collection Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Program Status Waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Continuously Continuously evaluate Medium Existing Mid-term to Low High T1.2, M3.1 32.1 Alternative technologies include evaluate new alternative fuels and Long-term compressed natural gas (CNG) collection vehicle technologies and electric vehicles (EV). This vehicles (C-6) including CNG and requires new trucks, a new fleet electric vehicles fueling infrastructure and significant changes to fleet maintenance. Benefit is cleaner air. The Mayor is currently evaluating a report on fleet options including CNG & EV. Contract Contract for collection Medium New Short-term / Low Low NA NA To improve residential collection Outlying Areas services in areas of the Mid-term efficiency, the City should evaluate (C-7) City that are difficult to routes outside its primary loop and efficiently collect waste contract out service to private haulers. Evaluate Evaluate management Medium Existing Short-term Low Low NA NA The City has a current contract to managed competition analysis evaluate managed competition of competition currently being solid waste services. SWMD will (C-8) undertaken for collection evaluate recommendations with program Finance, the Mayor and City Council.

Page | 125

Table 8-14 Transfer Station Recommendations Program Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Status Waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Transfer Negotiate contract for the High Existing Short-term Low High NA NA In 2020, the City selected Station operation of the City’s three contractors for operation of transfer contracts transfer stations stations. The City will need to (T-1) monitor the contracts and prepare for future negotiations once the term has been reached. Invest in Make necessary capital High Existing Short-term / Low High NA NA City is responsible for maintaining transfer improvements to the transfer Mid-term the three transfer stations. These stations (T-2) stations – continuously monitor facilities are approximately 20 years site repair needs and fund old and will require significant investments ($8-$10 million) in repairs and improvements. Northeast Design, permit and construct a High Existing Short to Low High NA NA The City has initiated steps to Transfer new transfer station to be Mid-term design, permit and construct a new Station (T-3) located at the NE Service NE Transfer Station to be located at Center – contract operations the NE Service Center. Recyclable Design and construct High New Short-term / Low High NA NA The contract with FCC to process Materials recyclable materials transfer Mid-term single stream materials means that Transfer (T-4) capabilities recyclable materials have to be hauled from all sectors of the City to this facility located in NE Houston. Having transfer capabilities for recyclables would reduce program costs. New Transfer Identify sites for two additional Medium New Mid-term / Low High NA NA As the City grows and traffic Capacity (T-5) transfer stations Long-term worsens, the City should identify additional locations for transfer stations. These locations will take into consideration landfill locations, traffic, existing land use and EJ. Rail Haul Evaluate the potential for Medium New Mid-term / Low Medium NA NA As disposal capacity is reduced, (T-6) developing rail haul capacity in Long-term one of the options available to the conjunction with transfer City is reliance on rail haul. This stations would require conversion of transfer stations, contracts with both rail and alternative disposal sites.

Page | 126

Figure 8-13 – Transfer Station Plan Implementation

Transfer Program 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Transfer Station contracts (T-1) Invest in transfer stations (T-2) Northeast Transfer Station (T-3) Design Facility Permit Construct Contract Operations Recyclable Materials Transfer (T-4) NW and SE conversions SW (Brittmore facility)

Increase Potential for Recovering Materials at TS (T-5)

New Transfer Capacity (T-6) Identify sites for two new transfer stations Design new transfer stations Construct new transfer stations Evluate Rail Haul (T-6)

Page | 127

Table 8-15 Energy & Resource Recovery Recommendations Program Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Status Waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues Promote Promote the use of Medium New Short-term Low Low M3.1 38.1 The MSW landfills the City landfill gas landfill gas technology by currently relies on do have recovery (E-1) the region’s landfills gas to energy systems. Evaluate new Evaluate the potential for Medium New Short-term / High Low M3.1 38.1 Alternative technologies technologies developing partnerships Mid-term / such as pyrolysis, (E-2) for energy recovery Long-term gasification and anaerobic technologies digestion have the potential to significantly impact disposal needs. Factors affecting these technologies include reliability, capital costs, low competing disposal costs and relatively low energy prices. Periodic Conduct periodic industry Medium New Short-term Uncertain Low NA NA The American Chemistry industry roundtable meetings to Council (ACC) is very active evaluations (E- identify options for local in supporting new 3) development technologies to resolve plastic waste problem. City should coordinate with ACC to identify strategies that could work in Houston.

Page | 128

Table 8-16 Assuring Disposal Recommendations Assuring Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Issues Disposal Status waste Stream Impacts Action Plan Plan Program Negotiate Negotiate contract for High Existing Short-term Low High NA NA The City relies on private Disposal disposal of waste sector for landfill disposal. The Contracts generated from City’s City has negotiated for future (AD-1) residential program landfill use in 2020. These contracts will need to be monitored. Monitor Monitor regional capacity High Existing Short-term / Low Low M3.2 NA The region has approximately capacity and prepare periodic Long-term 30-40 years remaining (AD-2) reports to Mayor and capacity, however this could Council change dramatically if there were future storm events or landfill expansions or closures. City Landfill The City should evaluate High New Mid-term / Low High NA NA The City’s reliance on the (AD-3) whether to own a landfill Long-term private sector reduces certain – if the answer is yes, risks, however, its dependence site, design, permit and also poses significant future construct a regional risks regarding available landfill disposal capacity. Contract In lieu of the City not High New Mid-term / Low High NA NA Based on available disposal disposal building a landfill, Long-term capacity and risk analysis, it services continue to contract with may be prudent to continue use (AD-4) private operators for of private landfills for future disposal services disposal needs. Identify Coordinate with landfill Medium New Mid-term / Medium Low NA 38.1 Landfill locations are often ideal Resource owners to identify Long-term for resource recovery Recovery opportunities to use sites alternatives due to existing Opportunities for potential resource waste infrastructure and site (AD-5) recovery opportunities access.

Page | 129

Figure 8-14 – Assuring Disposal Program Implementation Schedule

Assuring Disposal Capacity Program 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Negotiate Disposal Contracts (AD-1) Monitor contract performance Monitor capacity (AD-2) City Landfill (AD-3) Landfill Policy Decision Landfill Site Selection Landfill Permitting Landfill Construction Contract landfill operations

Evaluate Potential for Existing & Closed Landfills (AD-4)

Page | 130

Table 8-17 Illegal Dumping Program Recommendations Program Definition Priority Program Timeframe Impact on Financial Climate Resiliency Major Status Illegal Dumping Impacts Action Plan Plan Issues

Increase Increase the number of High Expansion Short-term / High Medium NA 39.4 Additional crews will have the collection crews trucks and crews assisted to Long-term ability to more aggressively clean- (IL-1) cleaning up Illegal dumps up illegal dump sites. Increase staffing Increase staffing at Medium Expansion Short-term / Medium Low NA NA Additional access in terms of sites at depositories depositories to enable them Long-term and staffing was recommended for (IL-2) to be open seven days per recycling and organics week and extended hours management as well. per day- Evaluate the potential for additional depositories Increase camera Increase staffing of the High Expansion Short-term / High Medium NA NA Camera surveillance has been surveillance (IL- camera surveillance Long-term identified as an effective means of 3) program currently managed illegal dumping enforcement. by the Harris County Environmental Crimes Unit Public Institute a comprehensive High Expansion Short-term / High Medium NA NA This should be a focused aspect of information multilingual and ongoing Long-term an overall public information / campaign (IL-4) public education program outreach effort. including billboards, announcements, and public service announcements Organizational Clearly identify High New Short-term High Low NA NA Significant organizational changes (IL-5) responsibilities for illegal are recommended for the Illegal dumping between the Dumping Program with greater Department of authority to Code Enforcement to Neighborhoods and the issue fines. Consider SWMD staff Police Department’s having same authority. Differential Response Team Improved Give Code Enforcement or High New Short-term High Medium NA NA Clearly defining responsibilities and Enforcement (IL- others the authority to issue emphasizing the level of priority 6) fines outside the Justice of associated with illegal dumping the Peace Courts and the enforcement is critical to program’s Environmental Courts - success. Rapid penalties for illegal dumping will serve as a deterrent against illegal dumping

Page | 131

PART IV

Appendices Appendix A – Acronyms & Glossary Appendix B – Facility Maps and Tables Appendix C – MATF Tables Appendix D – Organizational Responsibilities Appendix A – Acronyms & Glossary

Page | 132

Acronyms ATRS American Textile Recycling Service BOFA Batteries, Oil, Paint and Antifreeze recycling) C&D Construction & Demolition

CA Civic Associations CEO Chief Executive Officer CY Calendar Year ESC Environmental Service Center ETJ Extra Territorial Jurisdiction FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GBRC Green Building Resource Center HARC Houston Advanced Research Council H-GAC Houston – Galveston Area Council HH Households HHW Household Hazardous Waste HOA Homeowner Association HPD Houston Police Department kWh Kilowatt-hour MATF Mayor’s Advisory Task Force MRF Material Recovery Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste NA Not Applicable PCD per capita per day SF Single Family TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TPD Tons per Day TPY Tons per Year TS Transfer Station TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation UP Union Pacific Page | 133

Glossary Brush Cuttings or trimmings from trees, shrubs, or lawns and similar materials. Collection system The total process of collecting and transporting solid waste. It includes storage containers; collection crews, vehicles, equipment, and management; and operating procedures. Systems are classified as municipal, contractor, or private. Commercial solid All types of solid waste generated by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other waste nonmanufacturing activities, excluding residential and industrial wastes. Compost The stabilized product of the decomposition process that is used or sold for use as a soil amendment, artificial topsoil, growing medium amendment, or other similar uses. Composting The controlled biological decomposition of organic materials through microbial activity. Construction or Waste resulting from construction or demolition projects; includes all materials that are directly demolition waste-- or indirectly the by-products of construction work or that result from demolition of buildings and other structures, including, but not limited to, paper, cartons, gypsum board, wood, excelsior, rubber, and plastics. Disposal The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste (whether containerized or uncontainerized) into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including groundwater.

Facility All contiguous land and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste. Garbage Solid waste consisting of putrescible animal and vegetable waste materials resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and consumption of food, including waste materials from markets, storage facilities, handling, and sale of produce and other food products. Hazardous waste Any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste by the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 United States Code, §§6901 et seq., as amended. Household waste Any solid waste (including garbage, trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation areas); does not include brush. Industrial solid waste Solid waste resulting from or incidental to any process of industry or manufacturing, or mining or agricultural operations. Landfill A solid waste management unit where solid waste is placed in or on land. Landfills identified in this Plan are subject to TCEQ regulations related to location restrictions, design, operations, closure and post-closure care.

Page | 134

Municipal solid waste Solid waste resulting from or incidental to municipal, community, commercial, institutional, and recreational activities, including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and all other solid waste other than industrial solid waste. Municipal solid waste All contiguous land, structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for facility processing, storing, or disposing of solid waste. A facility may be publicly or privately owned and may consist of several processing, storage, or disposal operational units, e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them. Post-consumer waste A material or product that has served its intended use and has been discarded after passing through the hands of a final user. For the purposes of this subchapter, the term does not include industrial or hazardous waste. Processing Activities including, but not limited to, the extraction of materials, transfer, volume reduction, conversion to energy, or other separation and preparation of solid waste for reuse or disposal, including the treatment or neutralization of waste, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any waste to neutralize such waste, or to recover energy or material from the waste, or render the waste safer to transport, store, dispose of, or make it amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Recyclable material A material that has been recovered or diverted from the nonhazardous waste stream for purposes of reuse, recycling, or reclamation, a substantial portion of which is consistently used in the manufacture of products that may otherwise be produced using raw or virgin materials. Recyclable material is not solid waste. However, recyclable material may become solid waste at such time, if any, as it is abandoned or disposed of rather than recycled, whereupon it will be solid waste with respect only to the party actually abandoning or disposing of the material. For Houston residents, recyclable materials include:

▪ Aluminum foil and pie plates and tin cans (must be clean)

▪ Cardboard

▪ Newspaper

▪ Phone books

▪ Paperboard, e.g. cereal and tissue boxes

▪ Office paper, junk mail, envelopes and junk mail

▪ Shredded paper is not acceptable Recycling A process by which materials that have served their intended use or are scrapped, discarded, used, surplus, or obsolete are collected, separated, or processed and returned to use in the form of raw materials in the production of new products. Except for mixed municipal solid waste composting, that is, composting of the typical mixed solid waste stream generated by residential, commercial, and/or institutional sources, recycling includes the composting process if the compost material is put to beneficial use.

Page | 135

Sludge (biosolids) Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water-supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, exclusive of the treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. Solid waste Garbage, rubbish, refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi- solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, municipal, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community and institutional activities. Source-separated Recyclable material from residential, commercial, municipal, institutional, recreational, recyclable material industrial, and other community activities, that at the point of generation has been separated, collected, and transported separately from municipal solid waste (MSW), or transported in the same vehicle as MSW, but in separate containers or compartments. Special waste Any solid waste or combination of solid wastes that because of its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, or biological properties requires special handling and disposal to protect the human health or the environment. If improperly handled, transported, stored, processed, or disposed of or otherwise managed, it may pose a present or potential danger to the human health or the environment. Transfer Station A facility used for transferring solid waste from collection vehicles to long-haul vehicles (one transportation unit to another transportation unit). It is not a storage facility such as one where residents can dispose of their wastes in bulk storage containers that are serviced by collection vehicles. White goods Discarded large household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, or dishwashers. Yard waste Leaves, grass clippings, yard and garden debris, and brush, including clean woody vegetative material not greater than six inches in diameter, that results from landscaping maintenance and land-clearing operations. The term does not include stumps, roots, or shrubs with intact root balls.

Page | 136

Appendix B – Facilty Maps & Tables City Recycling Facilities and Depositories

Material Recovery Facilities

Composting Facilities

Transfer Stations

Landfills

Page | 137

Figure B-1 – Recycling Centers and Neighborhood Depositories (Source: City of Houston)

Table B-1 Drop-Off Location Materials (Tons) CY 2017 CY 2018 Neighborhood Depositories North 459.15 482.36 Northwest 265.74 227.81 Northeast 132.16 136.60 South 88.21 65.61 Southwest 148.39 113.88 Page | 138

Table B-1 Drop-Off Location Materials (Tons) CY 2017 CY 2018 Southeast 126.79 138.17 City Recycling Centers Westpark Recycling Center 1,261.09 629.54 Clear Lake/Ellington Airport 481.23 232.78 Kingwood Recycling Center 359.54 291.81 Total (Tons) 3,322 2,319

Table B-2 Reuse Warehouse Donations, 2017 & 2018 (in Pounds) CY 2017 CY 2018 Bitumen 3,148 40,880 Cardboard 42,021 20,000 Ceramic 28,483 19,683 Concrete 179,219 170,561 Doors 34,315 45,302 Glass 33,883 17,876 Masonry 185,542 209,863 MEP 25,224 52,765 Metal 185,271 53,670 Miscellaneous 4,804 3,995 Plastic 409,014 31,063 Soil 45,785 178,471 Wood 208,166 144,598 Total (Pounds) 1,384,875 988,727

Page | 139

Table B-3 Chemical Swap Shop Materials Reused/Recycled (in Pounds) FY 2016 FY 2017 All Materials Collected1 871,569 854,004 Total # of Customers2 5,433 5,408 Material Reused/Recycled Antifreeze 16,648 8,557 Bandit Signs 28,800 20,149 Batteries 4,288 13,974 Cardboard 11,580 7,020 Cooking Oil 18,550 20,690 Electronics Collections 70,795 60,855 Motor Oil 33,169 31,483 Plastic Buckets - - Reuse Books 722 1,701 Reuse Chemicals 17,964 18,467 Reuse Paint1 85,957 84,871 Scrap Metal 61,802 38,069

Shredco Paper3 - 4,600 Tires 5,244 3,418 Total (Pounds) 355,519 313,854 % of Materials Reused/Recycled 40.79% 36.75%

Page | 140

Table B-4 MRF Capacity in H-GAC Region 2017 Capacity MRF Address Owner Tons Recovered Throughput 4939 Gasmer Drive Gasmer MRF Houston WM 78,000 120,000 9590 Clay Road Houston Clay Road MRF Houston WM 105,000 204,000 Westside (Brittmore) 1200 Brittmore Road MRF Houston WM 87,000 120,000 7172 E Mt Houston Road Global Waste Services Houston WCA na na 5757 B Oates Road Houston Sort Center Houston Republic 37,580 50,000 tpy Independent Texas 6810 Irvington Boulevard Independent Texas Recyclers Houston Recyclers na na 9170 Ley Road Opened March FCC Houston FCC 2019 145,000 tpy

Page | 141

Figure B-2 Regional Reyclcing Centers (Source: H-GAC)

Page | 142

Figure B-3 Material Recovery Facilities (Soruce: TCEQ)

Page | 143

Table B-5 Organics and Capacity of Major Facilities Throughput (Tons/yr) Capacity (Tons/yr) In Houston Living Earth/Letco (7 sites) 375,000 The Ground Up 100,000 Lone Star Disposal 5,000 Farm Dirt Compost 1,000 Total In Houston >235,000 481,000 Outside Houston New Earth (2 sites) 350,000 Nature's Way 50,000 Living Earth/LETCO (7 sites) 375,000 WMI Coastal Plains 40,000 Don Tal NA Kirsch NA Total Outside Houston >613,500 >815,000

Page | 144

Figure B-4 – Compost Facilities (Source: TCEQ)

Page | 145

Figure B-5 Living Earth Facilities (Source: Living Earth)

Page | 146

Table B-6 H-GAC Transfer Stations Permitted 2011 2015 2016 2017 Capacity 2017 Name (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPD) (TPD) 1 Houston SW Transfer Station 311,435 292,856 271,317 244,213 2,000 783 2 Houston NW Transfer Station 162,482 226,364 220,391 217,157 2,000 696 3 Houston SE Transfer Station 194,793 219,022 229,169 241,632 2,000 774 City Transfer Station Total 668,710 738,242 720,877 703,002 6,000 2,253

4 Egbert Transfer Station 53,420 56,282 66,579 65,010 800 208

5 Excell Type V Transfer Station 43 17,515 14,622 12,110 1,000 39

6 Hardy Road Transfer Station 242,425 405,600 440,999 444,048 2,500 1,423

7 Koenig Street Transfer Station 107,954 157,777 145,461 123,166 2,500 395

8 Lone Star Recycling & Disposal - 199,982 262,705 284,473 6,000 912 9 Ruffino Hills Transfer Station 218,146 422,691 407,809 389,326 2,000 1,248 10 R&J Transfer Station - - - 4,598 125 15

11 Sam Houston Recycling Center TS 76,210 169,183 151,202 179,600 1,500 576

12 Sprint Recycling Center NE 25,723 128,800 20,450 19,473 1,000 62

13 Tanner Road TS 23,076 54,961 67,998 60,499 2,200 194 Houston Private Sector TS 746,997 1,612,791 1,577,825 1,582,303 19,625 5,071 City TS Total + Private Sector TS 1,415,707 2,351,033 2,298,702 2,285,305 25,625 7,325

14 Mid America Contractors 0 0 0 16,411 NA 45

15 City of Deer Park Transfer Station - 16,092 18,254 17,541 NA 56

16 City of Galveston Transfer Station 80,765 90,163 94,891 97,560 NA 313 17 City of Hempstead TS 0 126 68 89 NA 18 City of Huntsville Transfer Station 0 0 0 42,570 NA 136

19 Matagorda County TS 5,702 5,462 6,628 6,704 NA 21 20 City of Weimar 0 0 0 36,997 NA 118

21 Country Waste Inc. 8,747 7,959 6,540 6,451 NA 21 Outside Houston TS Total 95,214 119,803 126,381 224,323 711

Total Transfer Station 1,510,921 2,470,836 2,425,083 2,509,628 8,036

Note: Totals for Houston transfer stations may vary from Table 6-1 due to differences in reporting periods.

Page | 147

Table B-6 (cont.) Permitted Transfer Stations – Not Operational

Name Permit Status Not Constructed or Inactive County

22 Ralston Road TS Issued Not Constructed Harris

23 Tall Pines TS Issued Not Constructed Harris

24 Nexus Material Recovery & TS Issued Not Constructed Harris

25 Holmes Road TS Issued Not Constructed Harris

26 GW TS Issued Not Constructed Harris

27 FCC Materials Recovery Facility* Issued Opened in March 2019 Harris

28 City of Sealy Transfer Station Issued Inactive Austin 29 Sprint Fort Bend County TS Issued Inactive Fort Bend 30 Gulfwest Waste Solutions TS Issued Not Constructed Chambers 31 K2 Waste Solutions Issued Not Constructed Liberty 32 Pintail Landfill TS Issued Not Constructed Waller Source: TCEQ *FCC is permitted as a transfer station; however, it will function as an MRF. Became operational in March 2019.

Page | 148

Figure B-6 Regional Transfer Stations (Source: TCEQ)

Page | 149

Figure B-7 Regional Landfills (Source: TCEQ)

Page | 150

Table B-7 Type I Landfills – Ownership & Capacity Remaining Remaining Remaining Capacity Capacity Capacity Landfill Owner Tons Cubic Yards Years (2017) McCarty Road Republic 23,748,385 21,472,319 16 Atascocita Waste Management of Texas 29,228,482 38,458,529 24 Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Landfill TX, LP 87,275,249 142,373,978 88 Houston Primary Landfills 140,252,116 202,304,826 37

Altair Disposal Services Landfill Altair Disposal Services, LLC 221,083 368,471 5 USA Waste of Texas Landfills, Baytown Landfill Inc. 7,076,882 8,958,079 23 Chambers County Chambers County 10,481,597 17,469,329 402 Coastal Plains Recycling and Disposal Facility Waste Management of Texas 11,459,041 12,062,148 22 Fort Bend Regional Landfill Fort Bend Regional Landfill, LP 31,476,496 35,973,138 29 Galveston County Landfill Galveston County Landfill TX LP 27,813,032 37,084,042 53 Seabreeze Environmental Landfill Seabreeze Recovery Inc. 18,667,822 21,334,654 28 Security Landfill RDF TX LFG Energy, LP 9,350,389 12,848,470 24 Whispering Pines Landfill Whispering Pines Landfill Tx, LP 10,902,299 10,902,299 10 Houston Secondary Landfills 127,448,641 157,000,630 40

Total* 267,700,757 359,305,456 37

Page | 151

Table B-8 Type I Landfills – Annual Throughput 2010% 2018% Historical Throughput 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 Market Market Share Share McCarty Road 1,793,086 1,426,088 1,116,310 1,364,814 1,619,174 30% 23% Atascocita 939,804 1,242,928 1,253,621 1,209,440 1,248,556 16% 17% Blue Ridge 516,629 1,060,899 1,176,325 1,244,016 1,115,761 9% 16% Subtotal 3,249,519 3,729,915 3,546,256 3,818,270 3,983,491 55% 56%

Altair Disposal Services Landfill 37,786 34,708 54,897 48,629 48,764 1% 1% Baytown Landfill 343,409 314,510 289,103 315,000 259,473 6% 4% Chambers County 30,753 22,690 22,901 26,091 41,960 1% 1% Coastal Plains Recycling and Disposal Facility 523,005 421,864 456,613 521,025 455,410 9% 6% Fort Bend Regional Landfill 567,146 1,012,929 1,076,624 1,080,773 1,282,304 10% 18% Galveston County Landfill 258,025 403,513 357,493 393,882 154,927 4% 2% Seabreeze Environmental Landfill 546,014 487,123 523,376 686,618 571,974 9% 8% Security Landfill RDF 372,515 408,828 447,184 364,400 315,401 6% 4% Whispering Pines Landfill 48 30 20 24 41,248 0% 0%

Subtotal 2,678,701 3,106,195 3,228,211 3,436,442 3,171,461 45% 44%

Total 5,928,220 6,836,110 6,774,467 7,254,712 7,154,952 100% 100%

Page | 152

Table B-9 Type IV Landfill Capacity Landfill Address Tons of Cubic Yards 2017 Tons Years Capacity of Capacity Remaining Capacity Addicks Fairbanks Landfill 6415 Addicks Fairbank Rd, 47,633 75,608 56,929 1 Houston Casco Hauling and 1306 E Anderson Rd, Houston 549,300 1,220,007 97,147 5.7 Excavation Landfill Cougar Landfill 8601 Mount Houston Rd., 44,119 63,050 16 4 Houston Dixie Farm Road Landfill 4649 Dixie Farm Road 817,564 1,858,100 48,519 17

Fairbanks Landfill 8205 Fairbanks N Houston 13,029,083 17,751,880 176,600 37 Rd, Houston Greenhouse Road Landfill 3510 Greenhouse Road, 4,113,628 5,484,837 124,622 21 Houston Greenshadows Landfill 70 Jana Lane, Pasadena, TX 2,141,828 2,549,795 101,900 19

Hawthorn Park Landfill 10550 Tanner Road, Houston 0 0 16 4

Lone Star Recycling & 4107 S Sam Houston Pkwy, 5,479,259 10,958,517 303,486 16.1 Disposal Houston North County Landfill 2015 Wyoming Street, League 2,423,923 3,689,381 20 50 City Ralston Road Landfill 6632 John Ralston Road, 1,092,410 1,456,546 127,157 3.5 Houston, TX Sprint Fort Bend County 16007 W Bellfort, Sugar Land 7,258,243 13,904,680 307,236 24 Landfill Sprint Montgomery 17851 Highway 105 E, Conroe 20,292,681 40,585,362 8,857 50 County Tall Pines Disposal 18710 E Hardy Rd, Houston 1,318,835 1,758,447 344,369 3 Facility WCT Greenbelt 600 Old Genoa Red Bluff Rd, 2,215,513 2,954,017 155,381 12 Houston Total 60,824,019 104,310,227 1,852,255 32

Page | 153

Table B-10 Historic Type IV Disposal Rates Name 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 Addicks Fairbanks Landfill 45,536 100,600 129,328 56,929 32,953 Casco Hauling and Excavation Landfill 30,255 64,255 83,589 97,147 105,009 Cougar Landfill 114,201 16 16 16 1,423 Dixie Farm Road Landfill 34,574 42,092 48,961 48,519 123,599 Fairbanks Landfill 4 16 53,813 176,600 349,005 Greenhouse Road Landfill 54,066 107,114 123,931 124,622 171,287 Greenshadows Landfill 91,443 108,350 110,199 101,900 132,147 Hawthorn Park Landfill 109,034 201,177 151,350 16 12 Lone Star Recycling & Disposal 102,449 249,208 323,610 303,486 431,611 North County Landfill 12,304 30 24 20 51,442 Ralston Road Landfill 65,623 119,002 114,814 127,157 135,654 Sprint Fort Bend County Landfill 240,543 333,444 339,836 307,236 336,377 Sprint Montgomery County 8,887 255,269 Tall Pines Disposal Facility 223,881 338,122 316,931 344,369 425,407 WCT Greenbelt 162,006 144,883 135,280 155,381 240,888 Total 1,285,919 1,808,309 1,931,682 1,852,285 2,792,082

Page | 154

Appendix C MATF Pollling

Table C-1 What are top 5 solid waste management issues? (use 5 dots and sticky notes for items not on the table) Issue (1 – most significant / 5 least significant) 1 2 3 4 5 Disposal capacity is running out 2 1 3 1 1 26 Increasing consumerism and increased generation per capita 1 1 1 8 Insufficient program funding 12 1 1 64 Labor and fleet issues 4 1 1 21 Environmental impacts of waste disposal 1 1 7 MSW impacts on climate change 1 2 8 Recycling and organics market availability 2 1 11 Need for greater residential waste diversion 1 2 7 Lack of diversion in the commercial sector 2 2 Increased frequency and impacts of severe storms 2 3 1 18 Lack of Product Producer Responsibility 1 5 Difficulty in recycling materials due to packaging trends 0 Illegal Dumping 2 4 1 15 Others (describe on sticky note and rank) 1 4 Partnership with private sector 0 Contamination Education 6 6 Equity 1 5 Points 5 4 3 2 1

The top five issues were:

1. Insufficient Program Funding 2. Disposal Capacity running out 3. Labor and Fleet Issues 4. Increased frequency of storms 5. Illegal dumping

Page | 155

Table C-2 What are the biggest risks (biggest concerns for the future) for the City’s solid waste program? (use 5 dots and sticky notes for items not on the table)

Risk (1 – most significant / 5 least significant) 1 2 3 4 5

Running out of disposal capacity 7 3 1 2 1 55

Inability to collect garbage because of fleet 2 2 1 16

No markets for recyclable materials 5 2 2 31

No markets for compost 0

Inability to provide all services due to insufficient funding 11 1 4 1 73

Storm event (flooding / hurricane) 1 1 1 1 2 16

Inability to collect garbage because of staff availability 2 2 2 1 19

Landfill closures 1 4

Worsening traffic conditions 2 1 1 1 14

Points 5 4 3 2 1

The five major risks identified by the Task Force were:

1. Inability to provide all service due to insufficient funding 2. Running out of landfill capacity 3. No market for recyclable materials 4. Inability to collect garbage because of staff availability 5. Storm events and Inability to collect garbage because of fleet issues

Page | 156

Table C-3 The City relies solely on the General Fund for funding operations and new truck purchases which is providing insufficient funding for the sustainability of the Solid Waste Department. How willing are you to support the recommendation for a monthly residential user fee? Strongly Support Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Support How willing are you to support the recommendation for a monthly 9 3 residential user fee?

All members of the CTF supported a monthly residential fee for solid waste services. There was discussion during the topic that for many services that are provided by the City that certain services are available to single-family residents and multi-family residents. These services include access to depositories and recycling centers. Also, programs such as illegal dumping clean-up benefit the broader community, not just residents of single family households.

Table C-4 If you are willing to support a user fee, how much would you be willing to pay on a monthly basis for your City provided solid waste and recycling services? Lower $18.00 per $18.01 - $23.01 - More than $28.01 per than $18 month (Current $23.00 per $28.00 per month for expanded - via General month month services Fund) How much would you be willing to pay on a monthly basis for your City provided 1 6 4 1 solid waste and recycling services?

Page | 157

Table C-5 Prioritize potential initiatives the City should consider for source reduction, reuse, recycling and diversion. Each attendee receives 10 dots to place next to initiatives they most support. The City Should: Develop alternative markets 20 Lead by example through expanding the City guidelines on source reduction, reuse, recycling efforts for all City 5 agencies and offices Lead by example through expanding the City purchasing/procurement guidelines to expand on source reduction, 7 reuse, recycling requirements for City service and product providers Expand education/promotion on source reduction, reuse, recycling for residents, including working with non-profits 17 and private sector to leverage existing efforts Include more information regarding environmental impacts in City education materials (e.g. upstream decisions for 5 consumers) Implement a “green building code” to require source reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives, including C&D, for 4 new construction or renovation projects Add additional materials to recycling programs (e.g. textiles) 2 Adopt mandatory residential recycling ordinance, with strict code enforcement to issue citations for placing 9 recyclables in garbage containers Use Code enforcement at the curb to issue citations for contamination in recycling containers, and instruct 13 collection vehicle operators to leave the recycling container unemptied if tagged for contamination Implement a Pay-as-You-Throw curbside collection system where setting out more garbage costs more, setting out 4 less garbage costs less Add more drop off locations for recyclables, chemicals and electronics 9 Add more collection events for household hazardous wastes 6

Expand types of materials collected and reused in City-operated reuse of materials beyond current building 1 materials, electronics and chemicals Implement a voluntary technical assistance program to assist multifamily complexes in setting up on-site recycling 1 programs Implement a voluntary technical assistance program to assist businesses in setting up on-site recycling programs 3 Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance for multifamily complexes, with phased in compliance (education, then strict 6 compliance) Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance for businesses, with phased in compliance (education, then strict 5 enforcement) Implement reporting requirements to better track private sector recycling 3 Establish more informative data management systems to better track trends and provide more transparent and 5 useful data

Programs that received the highest rankings included: 1. Development of alternative markets for recycled materials 2. Use Code enforcement at the curb to issue citations for contamination in recycling containers, and instruct collection vehicle operators to leave the recycling container unemptied if tagged for contamination 3. Expand education/promotion on source reduction, reuse, recycling for residents, including working with non- profits and private sector to leverage existing efforts. 4. Add more drop off locations for recyclables, chemicals and electronics 5. Adopt mandatory residential recycling ordinance, with strict code enforcement to issue citations for placing recyclables in garbage containers Page | 158

Table C-6 MATF members were given the opportunity to place up to 5 Dots on the table. Organics Encourage diversion from the landfill of biosolids generated at City wastewater treatment plants to 12 processing facilities Encourage use of locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends outside City projects 5 Increase number and availability of manned brush/tree waste drop off locations 2 Provide greater support and expand availability of Master Composter program to build support of 9 organics diversion, and for public education Lead by example by encouraging use of locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends at City 7 projects and facilities Collect residential food residuals with yard waste and address appropriate processing capacity – 2 requiring a third cart Enforce current ordinance prohibiting placement of grass clippings in city collection carts 3 Encourage development of additional organics processing capacity within the City for a broader range 4 of food residuals, and biosolids In coordination with local health department, encourage food recovery to feed the hungry 3 Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance for organics collection, with phased in compliance (education, 4 then strict compliance)

The major program priorities related to organics included the following: 1. Encourage diversion from the landfill of biosolids generated at City wastewater treatment plants to processing facilities 2. Provide greater support and expand availability of Master Composter program to build support of organics diversion, and for public education 3. Lead by example by encouraging use of locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends at City projects and facilities 4. Encourage use of locally produced compost, mulch and soil blends outside City projects

Page | 159

Table C-7 Based on your personal experience – what is the City doing well and what needs most improvement? Use one dot per row. Needs Doing Needs 5 great City Activity Good Average significant Great Improvement 1 Need SI Improvement Garbage Collection 4 4 1 4.3 Recycling Collection 3 5 3 3.0 Yard Waste Collection 1 6 3.1 Junk Waste Collection 5 1 1 2.6 Tree Waste Collection 6 3.0 Environmental Service 2 1 2 2 2.4 Centers Illegal Dumping Clean-up 1 3 5 1.6 Depositories, Recycling 1 3 7 1 2.3 Centers Public Information 2 2 4 3 2.3

Points 5 4 3 2 1

Table C-8 What do you consider major issues related to disposal capacity? Very Significant Not a Score Challenges Significant Concern MSW Landfill capacity being 30-40 years 4 4 20 C&D Landfill capacity being 20-30 years 5 3 21 City has no control over new capacity 3 2 1 14 Anticipated cost increases of disposal 5 2 19 Selecting sites for new landfills 9 1 29 Environmental justice related to new 4 2 1 17 facilities Environmental impacts of landfills 3 4 1 18 Distances waste will have to be hauled when 8 2 28 close-in landfills reach capacity Points 3 2 1

Major issues related to landfills for the CTF included: 1. Selecting sites for new landfills 2. Distances waste will have to be hauled when close-in landfills reach capacity 3. C&D Landfill capacity being 20-30 years. 4. MSW landfill capacity being 30-40 years. 5. Anticipated cost increases of disposal 6. Environmental impacts of landfills

Page | 160

Table C-9 What are top 5 solid waste management issues? ((STAFF Responses) (use 5 dots and sticky notes for items not on the table) Issue (1 – most significant / 5 least significant) 1 2 3 4 5 Score Disposal capacity is running out 0 1 4 3 1 23 Increasing consumerism and increased generation per capita 0 Insufficient program funding 8 1 44 Labor and fleet issues 7 28 Environmental impacts of waste disposal 1 2 MSW impacts on climate change 0 Recycling and organics market availability 1 3 Need for greater residential waste diversion 1 1 2 7 Lack of diversion in the commercial sector 1 1 5 Increased frequency and impacts of severe storms 0 Lack of Product Producer Responsibility 2 4 Difficulty in recycling materials due to packaging trends 1 1 Illegal Dumping 1 1 1 4 14 Others (describe on sticky note and rank) Points 5 4 3 2 1

Page | 161

Appendix D Organizational Responsibilities The following describes the responsibilities of each division of the SWMD related to implementation of the Plan. Department Management

▪ Deparment management

▪ Support, i.e. accounting and billing

▪ Contract management

▪ Human resources management

▪ Policy development

▪ Coordination with key stakeholders

▪ Disaster management

▪ Route selection

▪ Public information / education programs*

▪ Response to 311 calls

▪ Planning* *responsibilities moved to new Planning and Outreach Division Maintenance Division

▪ Maintains the Department’s facilities/sites

▪ Provides leadership and administrativ reosurces need to maintain vehicle equipment

▪ Maitnanence repair services as well as fuel for operations

▪ Facility inspections Operations Centers Division

▪ Collection planning

▪ Collection services to residents

▪ Special services as required by Management, City Council, Mayor

▪ Daily equipment and staffing assignments

▪ Route management

▪ Code enforcement responsibilities

▪ Reporting to management

▪ Illegal dumping collection

Page | 162

Proposed Planning & Outreach Division

▪ Project Planning

▪ Landfill Monitoring & New Site Development

▪ Minimization & Recycling Grant Administration

▪ Public Outreach

▪ Waste Minimization Program Management

▪ Recycling Program Management

▪ Organics Program Management

▪ Program Performance Evaluations

Page | 163